Let’s have separation of the economy and state:
The government has no Constitutional, moral, or economic basis for controlling the economy. We seek to revoke its power to manipulate interest rates, debase the currency, manage the practice of medicine, restrict practical sources of energy, or rob Peter to pay for Paul’s house, financial institution, or automaker.
We identify government control of the economy as the cause of our current financial crisis, and argue that removing this cancer is the only solution.
Some will say that separation of economy and state is too radical a goal. To be sure, this goal will take time—and a roadmap—to reach. But it is the only valid destination. Where liberty is concerned, “moderation” is suicide. Patrick Henry did not say “Give me a small rollback in government or give me death.” He said: give me liberty. So should we.
Unfortunately, too many people don’t seem to want to be free, or responsible for their own lives.
The government has no Constitutional, moral, or economic basis for controlling the economy.
Alexander Hamilton, who was (as an author of the Federalist papers) largely responsible for the adoption of the Constitution, would disagree about that first count. As for “economic basis,” our economy has done quite well with government involvement, and there are no examples (that I’m aware of) of an economy with less state involvement that has done better.
Unfortunately, too many people don’t seem to want to be free, or responsible for their own lives.
I don’t think it’s a matter of “wanting.” In a modern, complex economy, a person can win or lose through no credit or fault of her own. We need the state to cushion the effects of that fundamental unfairness; otherwise too many people will have no reason to participate in the economy, and every reason to want to tear it down.
Alexander Hamilton, who was (as an author of the Federalist papers) largely responsible for the adoption of the Constitution, would disagree about that first count.
Really? Alexander Hamilton believed the government should control the economy? Then why doesn’t the Constitution say something to the effect that “the President is the CEO of the US economy”?
As for “economic basis,” our economy has done quite well with government involvement
Who’s arguing that the government shouldn’t be involved in the economy? But there’s quite a bit of difference between a government that enforces contracts and protects private property and one that takes a direct hand in managing private enterprises ala GM or Chrysler.
there are no examples (that I’m aware of) of an economy with less state involvement that has done better
I suspect that if someone felt like doing the research, it would show that the times our economy did best were times with less government involvement. I also can think of dozens of examples of economies with more state involvement that have done much worse than our’s
I don’t think it’s a matter of “wanting.” In a modern, complex economy, a person can win or lose through no credit or fault of her own. We need the state to cushion the effects of that fundamental unfairness; otherwise too many people will have no reason to participate in the economy, and every reason to want to tear it down.
You have a reason you believe government can do anything about this? My take is that someone fed you a fairy tale when you were at a young and impressionable age, maybe 18 or 19. Sure sometimes good or bad things happen to us no matter what we did. But more often good and bad things happen to us exactly because of what we did. It is foolish and naive to believe that we need the entirety of the current US government to protect against bad things that occasionally happen to people. Especially when government interference helps make matters worse.
The current financial mess, for example, happened because of what we or more accurately government did. A massive flood of easy credit, government protection of failing businesses, decades of government incentives (not just at the federal level) to build and own your own home at the expense of the rest of the economy, and special firms with government advantages and protections. There’s always going to be greedy businesspeople who cause trouble. But those people don’t normally bring down entire sectors of the economy.
Government especially at the federal level was the key factor you continue to ignore.
Yes, the Gilded Age (1870-1900) was such a lovely time, thanks to government non-involvement in the economy. /sarcasm/
As a direct result of the Gilded Age, we got the Progressive Era from 1900-1920, which led to creation of the Federal Reserve, the FDA, trust-busting, the income tax, and other “interferences” in the economy. In other words, we tried separation of economy and state, and got the t-shirt. (The shirt said “the experiment failed and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”)
direct hand in managing private enterprises ala GM or Chrysler. As I recall, the duly-appointed representatives of the ownership of those firms approached Congress, hat in hand, and asked for help. Congress authorized help per the Interstate Commerce Clause, with terms and conditions, and the President faithfully executed their law. Now a bankruptcy judge will get to weigh in, and the Supreme Court (in Chrysler’s case) declined to step in.
Good point, Chris. The Gilded Age was a pretty good time for the US. There was considerable government interference, but nowhere near today’s levels. Things really started to going downhill after that.
Good point, Chris. The Gilded Age was a pretty good time for the US.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or uninformed, but the Gilded Age was an economic train wreck. Unregulated companies were poisoning people (literally- see Upton Sinclair), bank collapses were regularly-occuring disasters, real wages went down, and monopolies were driving prices up. As far as “government interference,” Presidents of both parties bragged about how little they interfered with the economy.
Hamilton is my least favorite “founding father”. I don’t agree with a lot of what he thought.
Hardly anyone is arguing that the government has no role in regulating businesses. That’s a poor attempt at a strawman argument.
However, just because I like a steak every now and then it doesn’t mean I want a whole cow crammed down my throat. When unelected and unaccountable government bureaucracies are enacting tens of thousands of regulations every year, that’s more than token interference with business and the economy.
Alexander Hamilton believed the government should control the economy?
He wanted a national bank to set interest rates; the quoted passage says that function is unconstitutional.
You have a reason you believe government can do anything about this?
Yes. Poverty among the elderly is much lower than before Social Security, and access to medical care is much better since Medicare. The War on Poverty programs cut poverty dramatically.
But more often good and bad things happen to us exactly because of what we did.
1) Or because of something our parents did (or did not do). How much should children pay for the sins of their parents?
2) Do you really want to live in a world where you are totally responsible for everything that happens to you, with no second chances? Do you want your children to live in that world? Even if they’re born handicapped, or learning-disabled, or prone to addiction?
The current financial mess, for example, happened because of what we or more accurately government did.
That is a fairy tale.
No, what’s a fairy tale is that it was caused by “deregulation” and the free market (and the most insane notion of all–tax cuts).
Hardly anyone is arguing that the government has no role in regulating businesses.
Except that’s exactly what the excerpt and the full article are calling for.
Many regulatory bodies have been excellent for the US economy, where they promote transparency and competition. The SEC has been part of why the USA has the best financial market in the world (pre-SOX) and I thank my stars every day the FDA forces food manufacturers to disclose their ingredients.
Regs can obviously go too far (and often have), but a complete separation would not be an improvement from where we are today.
So Chris, explain the Great Depression. Tell us all how a bunch of government bureaucrats are so much smarter than a free market. Tell us FDR really didn’t prolong the pain. Explain why unemployment has been worse in Europe for years that it has been here. Don’t point to one or two small countries that may have done better. Trust busting made prices go up in many cases, not down. Kerosene, an important fuel at the time, is one example. There is a difference between health and safety regulation and economic interference. You’re doing apples and oranges.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or uninformed, but the Gilded Age was an economic train wreck.
I’ll go for choice C, you’re sarcastic and uninformed. Characterizing the Gilded Age as an “economic train wreck” is evidence of gross ignorance of the era.