'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.

[*not_your_average*]

I agree with Laissez-Faire economics to an extent. But we need some kind of regulation to keep businesses from becoming unethical and greedy. If there is no law, then our economy will go crazy. (Crazy in the sense that it will be unethical, corrupt and greedy.)

Some form of regulation is needed to keep businesses in check.

[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.

[*CrackedRearView*]

I absolutely agree with you, Acid. But the United States isn't a complete laissez-faire economy, it's just an offshoot of it.

American capitalism is an entity all on its own.

"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."

That's exactly what is needed. It complements human nature. Such was the failure of centrally owned economic systems proposed by Owen, Lenin, and Marx. Such was the failure of the Soviet Union.

It can also be applied to social issues as well. You're not influenced so much in this country because you're not forced to watch newscasts feeding political propaganda to the masses (like in Soviet Russia).

But honestly, do you think more government is better than less government?

[strice]

cracked, would you mind clarifying your position? i can't tell if you want complete laissez-faire economics or what. i don't like laissez faire because it puts the power into corporations, not the people. corporations require no standards, no morals, only some way to make lots of money. i'd rather we avoid another gilded age. laissez faire doesn't work just the same as communism doesn't work.

[*CrackedRearView*]

laissez faire doesn't work just the same as communism doesn't work.

Exactly. Complete laissez-faire would be:

1) Unattainable
2) Ridiculous

It would expand to allow absolutely no taxation, and no governmental rules when it comes to basically anything.

What the United States does have is a system of laissez-faire capitalism, in which most of the business work is left to the businesses.

What I want to know is why some people would prefer the government intervene in affairs that shouldn't concern them.

[*not_your_average*]

What I want to know is why some people would prefer the government intervene in affairs that shouldn't concern them.

These issues you feel shouldn't concern the government actually should. Huge corporations are infamous for scamming consumers time and time again. The government needs to have regulations so taht people don't get ripped off. It is the government's job to help the common man.

[sammi rules you]

I'm certain that on this forum there are at least three times as many Democrats as Republicans

i dunno about that. maybe just more democrats than you're used to..but i've seen a hecka lot of republicans.


and i don't support lassiez-faire. i think it's better for smaller businesses to have a chance to be largely successful. i'm more for the minority than the majority.

[*CrackedRearView*]

What I want to know is why some people would prefer the government intervene in affairs that shouldn't concern them.

These issues you feel shouldn't concern the government actually should. Huge corporations are infamous for scamming consumers time and time again. The government needs to have regulations so taht people don't get ripped off. It is the government's job to help the common man.

So you'd support a Communistic approach to economics, in which the government has the final say-so in everything that goes on?

1) People don't like being told what to do.
2) It interferes with competition.
3) It breaches several freedoms you enjoy today.

and i don't support lassiez-faire. i think it's better for smaller businesses to have a chance to be largely successful. i'm more for the minority than the majority.

So you don't support American capitalism?

[sadolakced acid]

So you don't support American capitalism?

laissez-faire is NOT american capitalism.

american capitalism is a balance between laissez-faire and communism.

when it comes down to it, communism is better than laissez-faire. why? take cuba, a communist country that doesn't seem to have too many economic troubles. now take any laissez-faire country- oh wait. they don't exist.
now, which one is more sucessful?

the control of the economy should never be in the hands of someone who stands to make a profit at the expense of the consumer.

sure- you don't want the governmetn controling it, that's fine. but someone who's not making money off of it should be controling it.

(government, apparently, does, considering politicials all get corporate sponsers and such.)

[sammi rules you]

well justin, i wouldn't say cuba's so well off in the economy...

[*mona lisa*]

^Cuba isn't doing that bad (not that well either). It would be doing better if the United States hadn't placed a trade embargo on Cuba, both imports and exports.

[*not_your_average*]

So you'd support a Communistic approach to economics, in which the government has the final say-so in everything that goes on?

1) People don't like being told what to do.
2) It interferes with competition.
3) It breaches several freedoms you enjoy today.
So you don't support American capitalism?

No. If the govt. had a final say in everything, there would no chance for our economy to grow. What I'm trying to say is that the government needs to REGULATE certain aspects of what corporations do, but not everything about the economy.

There are certain things I don't like about American capitalism, but I am not completely against it.

[*CrackedRearView*]

No. If the govt. had a final say in everything, there would no chance for our economy to grow. What I'm trying to say is that the government needs to REGULATE certain aspects of what corporations do, but not everything about the economy.

There are certain things I don't like about American capitalism, but I am not completely against it.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'regulate certain aspects'?

I don't expect you to be an expert in economics, but the only thing I could wager would upset you would be the desire of major corporations to possess a monopoly, and the federal government currently does a lot to prevent such instances.

But if a monopoly has been brewing for centuries, there's not much 'regulation' that could halt it.

[*not_your_average*]

The government has laws that keep big corporations in check, right? They need to enforce those laws and help the consumer, the citizen, the common man.

[*kryogenix*]

i'm more for the minority than the majority.

so you're against democracy?

as for my position, I agree that laissez-faire cannot work. if the government won't exercise some control over the economy, big business *cough*microsoft*coft* will use its leverage to gain a monopoly, which destroys competition, which means that business has control over that section of the economy.

[*CrackedRearView*]

so you're against democracy?

as for my position, I agree that laissez-faire cannot work. if the government won't exercise some control over the economy, big business *cough*microsoft*coft* will use its leverage to gain a monopoly, which destroys competition, which means that business has control over that section of the economy.

All of which has been avoided ever since the first Roosevelt's presidency.

[*mipadi*]

All of which has been avoided ever since the first Roosevelt's presidency.

Really? What about Microsoft? What about Bell telephone?

[sammi rules you]

or boeing?

[*kryogenix*]

or boeing?

Boeing? I thought Boeing was in trouble right now. They lost the JSF contract, and they're in serious competition with Aerobus.

[sammi rules you]

they still have a large monopoly. airports would have to redo their runways to accomodate the aerobus, and they don't want to do that. maybe in 50-100 years, we'll all be flying on aerobuses, but as of right now and in the past, boeing has dominated and is.

[*kryogenix*]

they still have a large monopoly. airports would have to redo their runways to accomodate the aerobus, and they don't want to do that. maybe in 50-100 years, we'll all be flying on aerobuses, but as of right now and in the past, boeing has dominated and is.

Not true. Maybe true for the A380, because it's just so big, but unless I'm mistaken, I remember landing in San Fransisco on an Airbus A340m and departing on a Boeing model (i think it was a 737).

[*CrackedRearView*]

Really? What about Microsoft? What about Bell telephone?

You provide inventor examples...

Bill Gates and Microsoft Co. pioneered everything up-to-date that accompanies a PC. Alexander Graham Bell founded Bell Telephone Company in 1877. However, innovation came with the cellular telephone, and look now. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Cingular, T-Mobile, and several other companies are vying for the crown in that market.


It would make sense that these companies have a monopoly on the product because they pioneered it.
Same goes for Boeing.

[*kryogenix*]

You provide inventor examples...

Bill Gates and Microsoft Co. pioneered everything up-to-date that accompanies a PC.  Alexander Graham Bell founded Bell Telephone Company in 1877.  However, innovation came with the cellular telephone, and look now.  Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Cingular, T-Mobile, and several other companies are vying for the crown in that market.
It would make sense that these companies have a monopoly on the product because they pioneered it. 
Same goes for Boeing.

I'm not really talking about their OS monopoly, it's their browser monopoly which is unfair. In fact, they've already been in hot water because of it.

[sadolakced acid]

Boeing? I thought Boeing was in trouble right now. They lost the JSF contract, and they're in serious competition with Aerobus.

hmm. thier JSF design is cheap- can't they sell it to other countries? or will the pentagon not let them?