Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 00:23

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Analysis of an issue! please rate

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Analysis of an issue! please rate [#permalink] New post 18 Oct 2010, 07:06
"Individuals living in capitalist economies suffer a higher degree of personal risk than in other types of economies. Creating regulations that protect a society can’t help but interfere with free market forces, a basic tenet of capitalism."

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The writer has put forward a very good point. He claims that a person living in a capitalist economy experiences a personal risk which is greater than that experienced while living in other types of economies. The writer feels that because such an economy has inherent regulations which on the outside are meant to protect the society, but on the inside hampers the flow of free market forces, there aren't many takers for this kind of economy.

Now, a capitalist economy is one where a majority of the factors of production in the economy are owned by private players.Such large scale ownership of essential industries in an economy by private players has the most obvious consequence- price manipulation. These private players have the hunger for profits.They, being the only suppliers of the commodity in the market, control the price of the goods they sell, much to the dissatisfaction of the consumer. Exhorbant prices will be charged for the products and the consumers will have no choice but to buy from these players, as no other source will exist.

For instance, company X operates in a country where there's no liberalisation and globalization of the economy.This is done to protect the domestic industries of the nation.As pointed out by the last line of the statements given, such regulations will disrupt the free market forces of demand and supply.Now, company X has the backing of the government as it is the only player in the industry. Thus, it will charge high prices for its products and since imports will have an abnormally high amount of duty levied on them, hardly any imports will be seen taking place in this economy. The result is an ever growing burden on the personal consumption expenditure of the consumers. Here is where the personal risk lies. Consequently, the standard of living ,of the nation as a whole, suffers.

Take the case of the same person living in a country where there is liberalistion, globalisation and privatisation of industries. There will be more competition among the industry players and thus price will be kept under control. The consumer will be charged a price which is much more fair and justified. This would thus not have a detrimental impact on the personal consumption expenditure of the consumers.Standard of living will not suffer and most importantly, concentration of wealth in few hands will be lesser. The personal risk therefore , in this case, would be much less as compared to the case in the previous paragraph. This is the kind of model every successful country follows. To prevent monopolies , the government of such countries incorporate the Anti-Trust laws , thus being fair to the ordinary consumer, ultimately leading to prosperity of the country.

In conclusion, the writer makes a statement which makes a lot of sense. Where there is control in few hands in an economy, the others will suffer without a shadow of doubt. This is true in the case of a producer-consumer model as well. An economy which prevents the formation of capitalism is bound to prosper in the long run, while a capitalist economy surely has a detrimental effect on the economy, where the consumers are the losers and the producers are the winners!
Analysis of an issue! please rate   [#permalink] 18 Oct 2010, 07:06
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Please rate : Analysis of an Issue nathandrake 0 27 Aug 2011, 13:23
Analysis of an Issue - Please rate. karishmaaries 2 28 Jul 2011, 07:23
2 Please Rate! Issue Analysis rockroars 2 21 Nov 2010, 15:45
Please Rate! Issue Analysis rockroars 2 21 Nov 2010, 14:26
Issue Analysis - Please rate sang5650 0 12 Feb 2010, 12:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Analysis of an issue! please rate

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.