Suppose that Antonio, an economist from an AM talk radio program, and Caroline, an economist from a school of industrial relations, are arguing over government intervention. The following dialogue shows an excerpt from their debate:

Caroline: The usefulness of government intervention in the economy is a long-standing issue that economists continue to debate.

Antonio: I feel that government involvement in the economy should be reduced because government programs cause more harm than good.

Caroline: While I do agree that government programs can be inefficient, I really think they are necessary to help the less fortunate.

1. The disagreement between these economists is most likely due to

a. differences in values

b. differences in scientific judgement

c.differences in perception verse reality.

2. Despite their differences, with which proposition are two economists chosen at random most likely to agree?

a. Lawyers make up an excessive percentage of elected officials.

b. Minimum wage laws do more to harm low-skilled workers than help them.

c. Tariffs and import quotas generally reduce economic welfare.

1) Difference in values which can also be called value conflicts are due to variations in belief systems. I.e. when the belief systems of two groups do not allign. While Antonio believes that government programmes should be reduced because they cause more harm than good, Caroline is of the opinion that despite the inefficiency of government programmes, they are still necessary for the less fortunate. This disagreement is as a result of value conflict.

2) Both economists agree on the inefficiency of government programmes. The focal point of Caroline's argument is that government's intervention in the economy is needed for the less fortunate. Based on this premise, two economies chosen at random will most likely agree to the proposition that tariffs and import quotas generally reduce economic welfare.