'Laissez-faire' economic policy Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

For any of you folks in high school that haven't reached United States History class yet, the term 'laissez-faire' is French for "Let us alone!"

The history behind it dates back to French oppression. A minister of state once asked what France could do to encourage and support commerce, and a frustrated manufacturer replied, "Laissez-nous faire!"

In essence, today's 'laissez-faire' economic strategy is this:

a) Separation of business and state, similar to separation of church and state.

b) Non-facilitation of the formation of trusts, by which an individual or a committee gains hegemony in an economic sector (this only happens when regulated government charters are ordered). The unregulated trust was 'busted' by Teddy Roosevelt, the 'Trust Buster'.

c) Promotes and rewards competition, especially in banking (destruction of the Federalists' ideas of a national bank, or Bank of the United States).

d) Directly refutes Marx and Engels' strategy as pointed out in the Communist Manifesto concerning the centralization of banks.

e) Those who are most productive are rewarded, and the greater an individual's ability, the greater the likelihood that he will be trusted and respected by others in the marketplace.

THE DEBATE: As it has played out in the last century, Republicans champion 'laissez-faire' economics, pushing for less governmental influence, whereas Democrats seem to push for more centralization and governmental economic reform.

I'm certain that on this forum there are at least three times as many Democrats as Republicans, and probably twice as many neo-Socialists as Republicans, so please, make my day.

Tell me why this system of economics is surpassed by the economic strategy of government centralization.

[sadolakced acid]

hmmm...

laissez-faire is inherintly evil. it's akin to throwing many people in a pit, each armed by themselves and to different degrees, and then telling the guy with a 2 inch blade that it's only fair they lost to the guy with the glock.

laissez-faire in it's purest form will result in an extreme economic condition, either inflation or deflation of the currency.

in pure laissez-faire, money equates power. those with the money hold power over those who don't. in a pure laissez-faire economy, prices for necessities would become extremely high.

trusts would undoubtably form as they did in the late 1800s in America, and because these trusts had money, they would be able to completely control the market.

each commodity would have it's trust. as each trust drove it's prices higher, the currency becomes inflated, going into a death spiral.

the other possibility is that consumers would be unable to pay the higher prices demanded by the trust, and the trust would lose money. faced with this prospect, they would be forced to lower thier prices. they would in turn, pay thier workers less. and the spiral forms in the other direction.

a good place to see why laissez-faire would not work is in a playroom. give children play money and tell them to set up a play economy, and there will undoubtably be someone who tells them what they can't do.

the moment one child tries to charge another one hundred dollars for a stick of gum because 'he's the only one who's got any gum', another child (who is usually in charge) will step in and say "you can't do that".

play groups that lack a leader-child will break apart when given play money, and the game will be abandoned, as it is no longer fun.

interestingly, it is also possible that, under laissez-faire, the buissenesses develop thier own controls to replace that of the government. a control like this would be a mafia.

pure laissez-faire proves good for the larger companies with liquid assets, and bad for the individual retailer and the consumer. eventually, a pure laissez-faire economy will be driven to destruction.