Reasonable Man
One of the remarkable things about the economics lessons in the CFA is how reasonable the discussion is. The editors are neither raging Objectivists nor have they been subverted by their relationship with academia. They certainly tend towards the libertarian, ignoring the social consequences of drug use, for instance. But on the whole, you get a pretty solid understanding of human nature along with those pesky supply-demand curves. Two examples.
In discussing the depredations of price caps, they look at the housing market after the San Francisco earthquake. After the quake, there were no rent controls, and there was - voila! - no housing shortage. Owners could charge what they liked, which encourage people to build housing. True, they point out, the government could have imposed rent control, and then passed laws against charging afew hundred dollars for drapes, but the cost of enforcement wouldn't have justified it. Not understanding this sort of thing let Bill Mauldin to wonder why housing wasn't available in postwar NY for the returning soldiers.
Just because they're reasonable doesn't mean they're right. They discuss whether monopolies may actually be more innovative than competitive environments. While they seem to accept the idea that monopolies are less innovative, they also claim that economies of scale make larger companies better at adopting and propagating innovation. There may be some truth to that in certain cases, but only in cases where they're kept sharp by competition. And even then, remember that very Fortune 500 companies from 1980 are still there today.