Anyone Remember Laissez Faire???

Big-A-

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
55
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,366
Reaction score
17,277
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Indeed. But it would only work if the government were also prevented from incurring huge unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs.
 
OP
Big-A-

Big-A-

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
55
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Indeed. But it would only work if the government were also prevented from incurring huge unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs.
That's what I'm saying.
 

AquaAthena

Law and Order-Now
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
16,607
Reaction score
13,472
Points
2,415
Location
Central Coast
Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
:clap2: But we have a government who would rather take control. The more they can bail, the more control they acquire.....
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,590
Reaction score
5,022
Points
280
Location
Washington
Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
We will never know. I think very few people would want to see a boom or bust economy which is characteristic of unregulated capitalism. Allowing all the inefficient, marginally profitable, poorly managed enterprises large and small to fail would eventually result in a more productive and more competitive business environment, but there would be a heavy price to pay. Some would argue that such a government policy would lead to the greatest depression the country has ever seen. Others would disagree. However, no administration would be willing to take the risk of doing nothing.
 
OP
Big-A-

Big-A-

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
55
Reaction score
5
Points
6

Cuyo

Training a Guineapig army
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
992
Points
98
Location
Denver, PA
Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
Uhh... Laissez faire? Not in this century pal.

Not last century either.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
Anyone Remember Laissez Faire???
No.

Hasn't been tried in over a century.
90 years. It used to be done in the 1920's when Harding/Coolidge slashed the federal budget by 50% and we were saved from the depression of 1920 and came roaring back in 1921 after a short year long hiccup.

I'm up for doing that again.

The problem is with Laissez Faire... is that companies tend to ignore consumer protection, safe labor practices and other safety rails in the economy quickly, so I'm leary about letting them cut totally loose.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: blu

blu

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
779
Points
48
Anyone Remember Laissez Faire???
No.

Hasn't been tried in over a century.
90 years. It used to be done in the 1920's when Harding/Coolidge slashed the federal budget by 50% and we were saved from the depression of 1920 and came roaring back in 1921 after a short year long hiccup.

I'm up for doing that again.

The problem is with Laissez Faire... is that companies tend to ignore consumer protection, safe labor practices and other safety rails in the economy quickly, so I'm leary about letting them cut totally loose.
this is my problem too. people are inherently evil and only become more so once they obtain lots of money and power.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
We also had HUGE protectionist tariffs that funded the majority of our budget... as did all nations in those days.

We should bring those back on countries that aren't competing fairly by abusing our kindness or poverty of their own people. Similar standards or tariffs to make up the difference. China would LOOOOOOVE that. No more slave labor and stone age labor laws.
 

blu

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
6,836
Reaction score
779
Points
48
I guess one caveat that I need to mention is that pure capitalism does account for greedy people running companies, but in practice it doesn't work. Capitalism theory says that if one company is run by an asshole who gives crap pay, no benefits, bad work conditions, etc you can work somewhere else. It also says that if people don't like the businesses practices or products from a business they can shop elsewhere. Both of these are ruined in practice though as monopolies and huge companies destroy competitors and do as they please with no checks and balances. My first every post here was a thread on monopolies you may find interesting:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/88976-capitlism-and-monoplies.html

edit: i forgot to add the ending peice which is sometimes government is necesary to regulate businesses because its the only force big enough outside the market to do so and create (or force) real change
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
That's why I call myself an "Ethical Capitalist".

Rule One: Profit but not by cheating, misleading, harming or deceiving the Public or employees.
Rule Two: Serve the Public at large by being beneficial to their lives.
Rule Three: Treat employees well and share with them the profits they help you earn.
Rule Four: Protect the Public and Labor from company practices that could harm them.
Rule Five: Uphold honor, integrity and solid ethical standards, leading the public and labor by example.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Capitalism is a self regulating system, especially now in the internet age.
If companies put out bad shoddy products, everyone finds out pretty quickly.
James Grant wrote a book where he pretty convincingly showed that the more gov't attempts to cushion downturns the more they depress any upturn in the next cycle. And they have done so increasingly over the last 40 years.
The cycle runs like this: There is an idea. SOmeone capitalizes on it. Other people get into the act. Pretty soon everyone is doing it and paying big money for the equipment or whatever it takes to pursue this business. Then people start paying stupid money to get into it.
THen there is the crash. Assets that cost $100 are sold for pennies. The buyers snatch up these assets and as the market recovers they make tremendous profits, ratcheting up the next boom. This is Schumpeter's creative destruction at work. Attempting to circumvent this process gives us the situation we have today with an anemic recovery, dinosaur industries like GM, Fan/Fred, and bloated gov't debt.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,737
Reaction score
37,110
Points
2,190
Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
What do you mean by Laisses Faire?

- Are you referring to the bailouts of GM and the banking industry? That we should have allowed them to bring down our economic markets and throw the world economy into turmoil?

- Or are you referring to situations like BP? We should keep our hands off them and allow them to make money any way they wish without restrictions? When an accident happens we just say OOPS

I don't think it works in either case
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
He means ending taxpayer subsidies to big wall street banks, auto companies and their unions.
Are you in favor of spending taxpayer money to bail out bad decisions of big companies?
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?
We have never let corporations alone. The very idea that we once didn't give aid to corporations is absurd.

Many (if not most) of them are enormous and wealthy because we aided them in becoming that way to begin with.

And one of the way we did that was by imposing tariffs such that they could find a market to become so wealthy to begin with.

There's so much more corporate welfare than welfare for the people, but until you understand the mechanics of how that welfare is given, you'll always be tool who imagines that we live in a real meritocracy.

I wish we lived in that imaginary world where talent and hard work were the only paths to success, but we do not, did not and probably never will, either
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top