1.

Professor Milton Friedmans research led him to believe in the power of free markets and
economic freedom.
2. If the government gives everybody the same freedom to work . . . some will do better than
others. The result will be equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.
3. The free market enables people to go into any industry they want; to trade with whomever
they want; to buy in the cheapest market around the world; to sell in the dearest market around
the world. But most important of all, if they fail, they bare the cost. If they succeed, they reap
the benefit.
4. In the example of the lead pencil, what conclusion did Professor Friedman reach in the
context of invisible hands?
The conclusion for Friedman was it takes many hands (people), performing all sorts of
jobs, to manufacture goods. The process for manufacturing a pencil could be traced to someone
mining metal for the steel that made the saw, lead for the pencil, and someone to combine all
those resources to make a final product.
5. Economists call the constant renewal of the economy creative destruction. If we want to
increase our wealth and opportunities, we have to stop doing old things in old ways and start
doing innovative things in better ways. In other words, we have to be creative.
6. An example of creative destruction was used in the video.
What technology was created? Cell Phones
What was destroyed? Landlines
Why was this new technology so important? This new cellular technology led to more
efficient ways to communicate in our personal and business lives.
7. The idea that the economic race should be so arranged that everybody ends at the finish line
at the same time rather than everyone starts at the beginning line at the same time. This
concept raises a very serious problem for freedom. It is clearly in conflict with it, since it requires
that the freedom of some be restricted in order to provide the greater benefits to others.
8. In the last 100 years with relatively free markets, we have created more wealth than in the
100,000 years before.
9. As Milton Friedman said, The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with
neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of
both.

10. Professor Friedman compares the concept of equality of opportunity to a race where
everyone begins at the starting line at the same time. In contrast, equality of outcome
guarantees that everyone finishes at the same time. Today, equality of outcome is referred to
as fair shares for all. If we applied the fair shares for all concept in this class, all students
would receive an average grade of C. This would be accomplished by taking points away from
students earning As and Bs to give to students earning Ds and Es. Distributing points equally
would result in fair grades for all.
Would you approve of this method in calculating your final grade? Why or why not?
My initial thought is to disapprove of such methods of grading. The trickle down effect of my
handwork to those who have coasted through makes the concept of equality of opportunity
almost parasitic. Those who choose to put forth less effort are essentially leeching onto the
efforts of those who want to achieve more. Its similar to the concept used in choose a dog sled
team. If a dog gives 80% they dont demand the other dogs give 120%. Every dog 100% all the
time.
How would this differ from fair shares for all economically? For example, whats the
difference between a successful student being required to give up some of his/her hardearned grade and a successful person being expected to give more of his/her hardearned income? If you support redistribution of income and wealth, shouldnt you also
be willing to redistribute academic grades? After all, many of your fellow students may
not have had the advantages in education and upbringing that youve had.
There are economic similarities with Fair shares for all. An example would be a fast-food
employee making as much as a successful business owner. It would seem counterproductive
that a risk taking business man has an equivalent wage a non-vested hourly worker. I dont see
myself supporting redistribution of income and wealth. Similar to the analogy of the business
owner and the hourly employee; one has taken one a great deal of risk while the other doesnt
put anything on the line. The mere fact we don't have wealth distribution makes our country what
it is. Competitive, innovative, and a place of ingenuity.
Compose 2-3 paragraphs explaining how completing this assignment helped you achieve
at least two (2) of the SLCC Learning Outcomes:
I would agree this film has made me more engaged with todays issues. Throughout this whole
course there have been ideas and concepts I havent considered. Developing a broader scope
of sight allows me to look at the issues of today with a renewed importance. Events I didnt think
effected me are now on my radar. Were all a part of this system and its important to
understand how it works.

The film about Friedman was very interesting. Im impressed with his ideas and feel that I can
see current events in the US economy with a critical eye. Reading between the lines is even
more important now that it was in Friedmans time and his ideas and theories really give a new
perspective to how economics work.