Is laissez faire capitalism is an effective economic system?

Posted by: komododragon8

  • Yes

  • No

64% 16 votes
36% 9 votes
  • Laissez-fare capitalism does not work. Minimal government intervention in the economy is good, but none is horrible. The government does need to intervene in the economy in rare cases. For example, if a monopoly were to develop in this total free market and dominate all of its competitors, consumers would have no choice who they wanted to buy from. This would give company a lot of power over the country and they would be able to set prices at will. In these cases in a normal free market society, the government intervenes and breaks the monopoly into smaller companies.

  • There is no invisible hand to regulate the economy in a capitalist economy because the power relation of wealth to power creates the dystopian economy of institutional inequality and oppression under the capitalist regime. There is no freedom under capitalist asides from the freedom to oppress and be oppressed.

  • It is very efficient for creating short-term economic development (look at Deng Xiaoping's reform of China as an example) However it is a terrible system when it comes to long term prosperity of the rest of the population as Capitalism by nature creates great economic disparity.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Knightrius says2015-04-13T12:46:30.2963593-05:00
The Laissez-Faire economic system is based on the ideas of liberty and freedom. It minimises government intervention or restrictions. Laissez-faire capitalism ensures that there is a "free market" which makes the most efficient use of resources, and avoids people becoming reliant on state support, and that it encourages creativity and growth. It is plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurial spirit in people which in my opinion is what is the most important aspect in a country's economy. Entreprenieal spirit is what caused the US to emerge as the lone superpower during the 1980s-90s, its zeal for innovation and creativity. And the laissez-faire system does just that.
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T13:22:05.0388798-05:00
The laissez-faire system involves the complete absence of government intervention. This is disastrous. In a laissez-faire society, all industries are eventually dominated by monopolies. This is utterly against the spirit of free market.
discomfiting says2015-04-13T13:23:34.2955712-05:00
The rich have self-help, the poor have state help. When you create a rigid paradigm where the power in society is decided upon capital accumulation; the poor have no ability to be self-reliant. You're criminalized and marginalizing victims of an unjust and oppressive system.
discomfiting says2015-04-13T13:26:21.5850622-05:00
Innovation and creativity isn't a good goal for a society when that process includes throwing away half the food you make while people starve, having a homeless population when there are more unused homes than homeless, when the resources, labor and time in the means of production is wasted on stupid products, wasteful hierarchical greed to feed the rich's gluttony and destruction of the environment.
discomfiting says2015-04-13T13:28:56.6190673-05:00
We're creating mansions and building boats the size of buildings for the rich while we call the poor selfish for wanting an education, food, shelter, clothing, basic human rights; this isn't a good use or efficient use of resources.
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T13:29:08.0691737-05:00
Wow, you sound a lot like Karl Marx. If people want to buy these 'stupid products' surely then they should be allowed to do so? If I want to buy two houses, and I can afford to do that, why should I not be allowed to do that?
discomfiting says2015-04-13T13:32:15.1353342-05:00
This is under the notion i believe in a monetary economy?
discomfiting says2015-04-13T13:32:47.9927769-05:00
Well i am an ancom, it shouldn't be a surprise i sound a bit like the most famous communist
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T13:35:02.9476392-05:00
If there is no money, what incentive is there to work hard and accomplish things?
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:08:42.6246861-05:00
How bout neither capitalism nor communism but rather national socialism that encourages a harmony between the different social classes
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T14:14:36.6576081-05:00
National socialism and communism boil down to the same key principle: discrimination. Whether it be discrimination of the rich, or of those considered to be of an inferior race, they are the same. National socialism even has 'socialism' in its name. Both involve economic systems which lack incentives to work hard and accomplish things.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:18:02.8648183-05:00
"the symbol of unification of all classes of the german people has become the symbol of the new reich, and thus it has become the standard of the german people...Because we do not say to the rich people give something to the poor, we say everyone must help whether you are rich or poor, Everyone must have the belief that there's someone in a much worse situation than I am in, and this person I want to help as a comrade." Adolf Hitler
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:19:25.3677343-05:00
If you didn't know the economic policy of national socialist Germany was very successful and very incentive. If you want to better understand how incentive works in national socialist economy you should see this
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T14:24:25.6742365-05:00
The economy in Nazi Germany was not successful. It looked successful, but that was only because the government was building up for war. Everyone was either conscripted into the army, or working in factories to produce guns, tanks, and armaments. That is not sustainable and would only last during the war. National socialism cannot maintain long term and meaningful economic growth, it relies on the demonisation of an enemy (in the Nazi's case, the Jews) and military build up.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:28:42.6856283-05:00
Actually when labor unions and other organizations which pit social class against other social class are dissolved you create a harmony between the social classes that leads to increased productivity and efficiency. Now people are suddenly confident in buying, working, employing, and investing. People no longer work only for themselves like in capitalism but rather work to a common goal as national socialism has united them by ideology, culture, and race while still maintaining the different social classes
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:34:55.0955653-05:00
Racial discrimination is more logical and should be encouraged if not enforced. Economic discrimination should be illegal
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T14:35:42.5183493-05:00
Psychologically, a utopia where everyone is working towards a common goal is impossible. Everyone has different ideas about what job they want, their ambitions, and what they want to spend their money on. Humans are inherently selfish and independent. The average person couldn't care less about ideology, race, and culture. All we care about as humans is enriching ourselves. Most of the incentive provided by national socialism is in fear. The government uses the military to threaten people with execution, forced labour camps, and imprisonment if they do not work. This form of incentive is not sustainable.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:40:17.8152580-05:00
Actually people didn't have a sense of fear but rather a pride to be german, work for germany, and be a part of the german people rather rich or poor. Basic instincts can be overcome with education which unites them culturally, ideologically, and racially. If you went to national socialist germany you would see that people volunteered to work hard and they do it with pride because they've been taught to work with pride and harmony. And yes people do care about race, ideology, culture, and nation.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:40:36.1311277-05:00
Some even volunteered to work free for germany
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:42:38.7312769-05:00
If people dedicated to islam can dedicate their lives to suicide attacks for their religion surely people could dedicate hard work in the name of national pride
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T14:45:36.3483225-05:00
The state propaganda machine, promoting people to work in the name of race, culture, and ideology is an effect means of providing incentive in the short term. We saw this in the early years of the USSR, when the world was shocked by their speedy economic growth. Use of propaganda to inspire people to work is a strategy used by many countries in war time, including the USA and the UK. However, history shows us that an economy run on incentives provided by propaganda does not last. In the long run, selfish human nature prevails, and the economy gradually slows to a halt. This is exactly what happened in the USSR, and what would have happened in Nazi Germany had it been able to last any longer.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:48:14.0602785-05:00
Actually the earliest years of USSR were the worst years with all the purges and jewish Bolshevik agitators like trotsky, kagonoich, yagoda, and many many more. People in the USA still volunteer and do things out of selfless interest even without propoganda sometimes.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:48:39.6904213-05:00
No such economic growth occured in the early years as entire social classes were exterminated
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T14:51:26.2574061-05:00
The first twenty-thirty years of the USSR, especially the early years under Stalin, were years of great economic growth in the USSR. This was due to the indoctrination of the populace into Communism. That growth slowed throughout the rest of the century, as propaganda and fear based economies do not last in the long term.
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:56:58.2239229-05:00
Actually it's the opposite the worst years were in the early years as kulaks were destroyed and chaos insued. Later years showed signs of nuclear development and space development and fewer purges. Those that lived in the generation of tsar generally were more resistant to propoganda than those born in the Bolshevik generation. You've got it all wrong, worst years were early years
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:57:44.6557138-05:00
When propoganda wasn't ingrained enough. The problem was never propoganda but dissolving of social classes and extreme classism
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:58:57.6841749-05:00
Classism and classicide are absent from national socialism so they won't create problems
heil40 says2015-04-13T14:59:20.5613736-05:00
Like they did in USSR
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-13T15:10:08.0225827-05:00
Under Stalin, the Soviet Union's economy grew rapidly. Of course, there was the incident with the extermination of the Kulaks, that is a Communist specific issue. But the wider image shows us that under Stalin, an economy built on propaganda and fear flourished as he industrialised the country. Everyone was working for the same wage, there was no monetary incentive to work hard, the incentive was provided by propaganda and fear. That incentive worked very well for the early years of the USSR, but in the later days of the USSR it could not be maintained. The struggle between the classes is a term invented by Karl Marx, it doesn't exist.
discomfiting says2015-04-13T15:15:43.1095941-05:00
We change the selfishness that's existent in the current paradigm of society. A society based on the gift economics; to give, receive and reciprocate. Incentives do not work.Http://www.Trinity.Edu/eschumac/HCAI5313/JEP%20--%20When%20and%20Why%20Incentives%20(Don't)%20Work%20to%20Modify%20Behavior.Pdf
heil40 says2015-04-13T15:16:47.8011353-05:00
Actually the famines like holodomor were in the earlier years. Under stalin and especially the early years it was the MOST inefficient. It was so unpopular that there was a white russian counterrevolution in 1923
heil40 says2015-04-13T15:21:48.8211582-05:00
You seem like those delusioned capitalists that believe corruption is to blame when in fact communism is to blame not people for being selfish. In fact the whole notion of people being corrupt and communism being good is stalinist propoganda used to justify the extermination of 'corrupt' people and scapegoat others rather than take the blame for communism being bad. I wrote this in an earlier thing "soviets, communists, jews, and Marxists are the worst especially with their communist idea. People unfortunately say communism never worked to it's true potential and that it's peoples fault for being 'corrupt'. In truth communism to its intended extent will be a hell on the Earth far worse than USSR or communist china. The only reason the earth still exists today is because communism could never be carried out to its full extent and those countries had slight capitalist elements in them. Communists say their theory is 'good' and it's everyone else's fault for being 'corrupt'. In fact their theory caused all the problems, because usually in like capitalist or national socialist economy inefficient industries are out-competed by communism has those industries kept alive so people working there can have jobs. Not only are those industries kept alive intentionally when they need to go for society to progress but communism would require people buy from those industries to keep them alive when they could be buying something more useful from efficient industries and promoting their growth. This encouragement for inefficient industries was the cause of mass disaster and not people's fault. This resource deficiency added with everyone gets equal share of this disaster means every and 100% of the world will suffer and starve and die. Communists knew it was their policies keeping inefficient industries alive that caused mass starvation but they decided to blame everyone else for the failure and thus was the Holodomor and communist led genocides so they could take the blame off their own hands. It can only be clear jewish Karl Marx and Moses Hess and the rest of the Bolshevik jews created communism to destroy the world although they never succeeded because it was fortunately never implemented correctly. Therefore hitler's 'genocides' were for selfless reasons and for the betterment of humanity communist genocides were to destroy the world, humanity, and to put the blame on others"
BblackkBbirdd says2015-04-13T15:22:37.7157629-05:00
Heil: do you think people will read that or, do you just like wasting time?
Knightrius says2015-04-14T05:06:45.7805173-05:00
Ave Matthew, you contradicted yourself. Laissez-Faire means free market which means no government intervention.
Ave_Matthew says2015-04-14T11:36:02.0429044-05:00
Free markets are markets where business are free from unnecessary government intervention. Laissez Faire system involves the total absence of government intervention. This is bad because monopolies begin to spring up over time in every industry, meaning there would be only one company is buy from for every product. Monopolies go against the spirit of free market, because they are against competition. Competition is necessary for a free market.
Knightrius says2015-04-14T14:40:54.1688282-05:00
Hiel40, its pretty racist to say that all Jews are communist lmao
Knightrius says2015-04-14T14:44:22.9793938-05:00
Ave, fair point but again, llaissez faire is the only economic system which actually instills competition, due to the minimal barrier to entry during the initial phase. And if there happens to be a monopoly. Considering its a libertarian principled party ruling, the citizens themselves can fight back.
Jack_D says2015-04-18T19:51:45.5445448-05:00
This question is simply too vague to answer either way. Are we talking a mixed economy with private enterprise but with a social safety net and environmental protections, or a rand Paul dream world with no regulations and/or taxes.
Knightrius says2015-04-18T22:59:40.9308848-05:00
Laissez faire ideally means the latter

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.