The Secret Big-Money Takeover of America

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

In this thread I am not advocating socialism or communism.

I am simply pointing out that laissez faire capitalism (which is just another way to say totally free markets) is not the perfect solution many of its true believers think it would be.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

In this thread I am not advocating socialism or communism.

I am simply pointing out that laissez faire capitalism (which is just another way to say totally free markets) is not the perfect solution many of its true believers think it would be.

You are, however, misrepresenting laissez faire capitalism when you liken it to 19th century American economics, or Russia after the fall of communism.

n economics, laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.

Although the period before the New Deal was notable for the limited extent of the federal government, the Austrian School suggest that there was a considerable degree of government intervention in the economy—particularly after the 1860s. Notable examples of government intervention in the period prior to the Civil War include the establishment of the First Bank of the United States and Second Bank of the United States as well as various protectionist measures (e.g., the tariff of 1828).

Perhaps the best historical examples of laissez faire economy would be the Song and to a lesser degree the Ming dynasties, although neither were capitalist economies, they did employ laissez faire policies. Britain in the 19th century, while having ardent laissez faire supporters, was not an absolute laissez faire economy, and The United Kingdom Company Law, the Limited Liability Act of 1855, and the Joint Stock Company Act of 1856 being the most obvious government intervention acts that prevented the U.K. from actually being a laissez faire free market.

Since, by definition, laissez faire means no government interference, it is pointless to point to historical era's where government interference did exist, and call that an example of laissez faire. Governments, by their very nature, cannot resist interfering, and it is fairly assumed that as long as we have government, we will have, to some degree or another, interference in the market place. While you may not be advocating socialism or communism, you are undeniably advocating increased regulation. The purpose of my previous post was to demonstrate the real and genuine problems that exist with the regulation we do have.