Compares 3 Economic Sociologists

4 Pages 975 Words

There must be more to life than having everything.
-Maurice Sendak


But isn’t “everything” the ultimate utility basket? Doesn’t “having everything” include animate objects as well as the inanimate? The setbacks as well as achieving success? Milton and Rose Friedman suggest in their book, Free to Choose, that this status of possession is not attainable. The Friedmans offer their view of how sociologic and governmental factors positively and negatively affect the economy, and with it, the utility of individuals.
Who is really in charge? Can anyone be held responsible for the countless interactions that take place between individuals everyday? The “technique of coordinating the activities of large numbers of people” is a “command that must be supplemented by voluntary cooperation” (Friedman, 1980: 9). Individuals are selfish by nature and may cause an economy to suffer if those governing are doing so by undisclosed yet suggestive activity. It is argued that any economy in which voluntary exchange is not principle will fail as no room is allotted for opulence or autonomy (Friedman, 1980: 11). The price system in a free market is a major contributor to the stability and peaceful operation of an economy. An exchange between individuals is simplified and hastened (but not necessarily more efficient as will be argued later) by a stuck price level. The buyer and seller partake in actions that each believes is personally beneficial. In doing so, each is closer to obtaining his/her ultimate utility basket. The Friedmans break down the main performance functions of prices: transmit information, incentive to be efficient, distribution of income (Friedman, 1980: 14). It is also suggested that government regulation and policy have always played a substantial role in hindering the benefits of these functions (Friedman, 1980: 17) thus negatively effecting the public.
In order to aid voluntary exchange, the fre...