Laissez-faire Economics Dead??

The past couple of years have been turbulent times for the people of the U.S. with the dollar plummeting and no end to the economic woes in sight. With all of these big industries going bankrupt one has to ask why all the handouts? Has the idea of Laissez-faire Economics Died? If your not familiar with the term its basically the idea that the government should have limited roles in industry to allow for better capitalism and healthy competition. Corporate buy outs and takeovers are the norm in Laissez-faire Economics, when a company is in trouble another buys them out. The past few years we have seen the death of this wonderful ideology through government bailout after government bailout. These huge companies are falling and asking for handouts from the government which in my oppinion goes against the idea of Laissez-faire Economics. Could we be seeing the end of this ideology and the norm being "if you are big enough and are in trouble we (the Fed) can help out". Here are a few bailouts the press has reported lately.

Detro it Automakers ask for 50 billion from congress

Indymac Bank In California Seized by Feds

Feds Help J.P. Morgan Takeover Bear Stearns

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Takeover By U.S. Government

what are your ideas on the subject? do u think our government should just keep bailing out these huge companies?

Originally posted by csuskatechem420
Laissez-faire Economics Dead?

Accountability is dead.

These bailouts are tantamount to get-out-of-jail-free cards, and as long as we don't punish the abusers (or those who fail to hold them accountable) we move on to the next big fiasco.

I wonder when our children will realize the full extent of how utterly negligent their parents and grandparents have been?

Sad, really. Very, very sad.



[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]

Well, it should be dead. In fact Barack Obama mentioned it in his DNC speech. The basic theory is the "free-market" theory where you just let businesses do what they do... they make extra weath and that wealth "trickles down" to the populace.

As argued best by Joseph Seiglitz (spelling? He was an economic advisor to Bill Clinton and Nobel-prize-winning economist... writes books on globalisation), the free-market system may be good for top businesses, but the money doesn't trickle down to the people... this is apparently seen in both practice and theory. And this is my pretentious analogy...ahem... businesses grow wild with their own interests at heart, but the government must be a gardener, preventing overgrowth of some, supporting others to a degree, and stimulating new growth. Although this plays to Reagan's old joke of "if it moves, tax it. If it stops, subsidise it!", nevertheless government needs to get involved with business for the good of the people -- whether their savings are lost or whether it's an anti-competition issue.