Is >free enterprise< the final answer. Maybe not...but its the closest we've come to getting an A so far.Uh... The "final answer" to *what*? "Life, the Universe, and Everything"?!? It might not have been what you meant (but judging from the rest of your text, it is -- see below), but it sure seems as if you're seeing the economy as the *end* result, the good we're striving for.
It's not, it's just a means. The whole economy enchilada, be it a "free enterprise" market or a "socialist/communist" command economy or stone-age barter -- it's all just about providing the resources for us (people individually, and society as a whole) to *really* _do_ something with.
That's all it is; a means to an end.
Not an end in itself.
BUT...the society as a whole plays a factor as well.This is precisely, exactly, 100-percent, 180 degrees, WRONG. You're subordinating *society as a whole* to the Holy Free Market (or, in wider terms, to the economy), and that's upside-down, ass-backwards, running in reverse, the tail wagging the dog.
It should be, "Society blah blah ... but the economy [plays a role / is a factor] as well".
The one example I can give of societal failure impacting bizness...Yup, this clinches it.
Not that it isn't true, of course -- let me hasten to add -- but how this shows the style of your argument: From the whole tone of your epistle, it transpires that "society" has no higher function than to serve "The Market" (or, again, the economy (whatever form it may be)). That's wrong.
It is the economy that is a part of, and subordinate to, society. NOT[*] the other way around.
...while bizness had a >need< [...] society had failed to provide...Heh -- never mind the Cremlologist examination of your "tone"; you're bloody well spelling it out.
It's not the science of economy that's dismal, it's the perspective all too many people seem to have on it that is.
*: Note to Mike H: At least it's not bold-face...