No, just a distraction.
When All Else Fails Blame "Free Markets"
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
No, just a distraction.
One of the possible interpretations of laissez faire is just as you say. A literal translation of laissez faire would be, I suppose, my French is weak, "let do" and a loose, idiomatic translation could be "to do as you please" . Traditionally this has usually meant that businesses were free to operate with a minimum of, or perhaps no, government interference.
I am using the term in an expanded, modern sense, where it means an absence of regulation affecting your business, but not necessarily those of your competitors. The modern laissez faire capitalists may actually welcome regulations that are much more damaging or burdensome to their competitors than to themselves.
Once again we have Piezoe giving of the leftist /statist / pre fascist spin on history.
Wikipedia's definition is in far more accord with the classical definition.
The economic theory I learned was always desiring robust competition and contained a desire to get even more information into the market place so that price could signal to individuals and that the aggregation of individual needs would help create an efficient distribution of resources. Historically Everyone was aware of bad actors in the govt and bad actors in business who wished to gain an edge through regulation by govt or by creating monopolies.
Its is said the phrase came about because the french were already over regulating mercantilist society and when ask what else the govt could do the mercantilist said "let us do" or leave us be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
Fundamentals of laissez-faire[edit]
As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[1]
1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
2. The individual has a natural right to freedom.
3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.
These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have always emphasized.[1]
Wikipedia's definition is in far more accord with the classical definition.
The economic theory I learned was always desiring robust competition and contained a desire to get even more information into the market place so that price could signal to individuals and that the aggregation of individual needs would help create an efficient distribution of resources. Historically Everyone was aware of bad actors in the govt and bad actors in business who wished to gain an edge through regulation by govt or by creating monopolies.
Its is said the phrase came about because the french were already over regulating mercantilist society and when ask what else the govt could do the mercantilist said "let us do" or leave us be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
Fundamentals of laissez-faire[edit]
As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[1]
1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
2. The individual has a natural right to freedom.
3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.
These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have always emphasized.[1]
I haven't. Is it the article in the July 18th Washington post that you refer to?
Yes.
as with most movements..Laissez-faire was a reaction to what came before --- the way the U.S. democracy was a reaction to kings, the way the worth of the individual was a reaction to monarchies and the pope. Individuals had a right to choose... to read the bible in their native tongue to choose their govt and to choose in economics...
.... much the way grunge was a reaction to the the late 70s bloat and the 8Os synthetic crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
Mercantilism is an economic theory practice, commonly used in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nationâs economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism.[1] It includes a national economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods. Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[2] Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion. Mercantilist theory varied in sophistication from one writer to another and evolved over time. High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, are an almost universal feature of mercantilist policy. Other policies have included:
Building overseas colonies;
Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations;
Monopolizing markets with staple ports;
Banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships;
Export subsidies;
Promoting manufacturing with research or direct subsidies;
Limiting wages;
Maximizing the use of domestic resources;
Restricting domestic consumption with non-tariff barriers to trade.
Mercantilism in its simplest form was bullionism, but mercantilist writers emphasized the circulation of money and rejected hoarding. Their emphasis on monetary metals accords with current ideas regarding the money supply, such as the stimulative effect of a growing money supply. Specie concerns have since been rendered moot by fiat money and floating exchange rates. In time, the heavy emphasis on money was supplanted by industrial policy, accompanied by a shift in focus from the capacity to carry on wars to promoting general prosperity. Mature neomercantilist theory recommends selective high tariffs for "infant" industries or to promote the mutual growth of countries through national industrial specialization[citation needed].
The term "mercantile system" was used by its foremost critic Adam Smith,[3] but "mercantilisme" had been used earlier by Mirabeau. While many nations practised it, one leading exemplar was France, the economically most important state, where King Louis XIV followed the guidance of Jean Baptiste Colbert, his controller general of finances (1662-83). They were determined that the state should rule in the economic realm as it did in the diplomatic, and that the interests of the state as identified by the king were superior to those of merchants and everyone else. The goal of economic policies was to build up the state, especially in an age of incessant warfare, and the state should look for ways to strengthen the economy and weaken foreign adversaries.[4]
.... much the way grunge was a reaction to the the late 70s bloat and the 8Os synthetic crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
Mercantilism is an economic theory practice, commonly used in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nationâs economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism.[1] It includes a national economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods. Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[2] Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion. Mercantilist theory varied in sophistication from one writer to another and evolved over time. High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, are an almost universal feature of mercantilist policy. Other policies have included:
Building overseas colonies;
Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations;
Monopolizing markets with staple ports;
Banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships;
Export subsidies;
Promoting manufacturing with research or direct subsidies;
Limiting wages;
Maximizing the use of domestic resources;
Restricting domestic consumption with non-tariff barriers to trade.
Mercantilism in its simplest form was bullionism, but mercantilist writers emphasized the circulation of money and rejected hoarding. Their emphasis on monetary metals accords with current ideas regarding the money supply, such as the stimulative effect of a growing money supply. Specie concerns have since been rendered moot by fiat money and floating exchange rates. In time, the heavy emphasis on money was supplanted by industrial policy, accompanied by a shift in focus from the capacity to carry on wars to promoting general prosperity. Mature neomercantilist theory recommends selective high tariffs for "infant" industries or to promote the mutual growth of countries through national industrial specialization[citation needed].
The term "mercantile system" was used by its foremost critic Adam Smith,[3] but "mercantilisme" had been used earlier by Mirabeau. While many nations practised it, one leading exemplar was France, the economically most important state, where King Louis XIV followed the guidance of Jean Baptiste Colbert, his controller general of finances (1662-83). They were determined that the state should rule in the economic realm as it did in the diplomatic, and that the interests of the state as identified by the king were superior to those of merchants and everyone else. The goal of economic policies was to build up the state, especially in an age of incessant warfare, and the state should look for ways to strengthen the economy and weaken foreign adversaries.[4]
Indeed... There's more than enough evidence to suggest that there has been a lot of progress.
Like I have said many times, this is a false theory that is put forward by the bank lobby.
I don't understand how a legal act with binding covenants in black and white can be a "theory"?
LOL! Hilarious, Martin. Always good for a laugh. A period of unprecedented central bank manipulation and intervention and we're making progress.
The contribution of these "binding covenants" to the crisis has been studied extensively. The claims that you're referring to are made by people (e.g. Edward Pinto and Peter Wallison) who are looking to absolve the banks and their leadership of all responsibility for terrible decisions. These claims are so obviously not supported by actual data, it's hard to imagine that the people making such statements don't have an ulterior motive.