Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Should the Government be Laissez Faire or Welfare State? Arguments and Evidence

You can use any evidence from the 10 historians or from chapters 8, 9, or 10. Below are some of the arguments/thesis statements we discussed. Feel free to borrow. Remember, you will have to


LF never really happened, and the belief that hands off policies are good for the country is based on a flawed understanding of economics and a flawed view of human nature.

LF is really the wrong phrase. Nothing is good in extremes, but if you take as your driving principle that government should regulate and interfere as little as possible, you are off to a good start.

LF is a fig leaf thrown up to hide the fact that the rich were stealing money.

LF thinkers pretend that all regulation is destructive b/c we can’t estimate the consequences; however, nothing is so complicated that govt cant regulate major abuses.

LF generated great wealth, and despite the problems that resulted and the abuses , in the end, everyone in the US was better off.

LF could not take into account the negative externalities like damage to the environment. This will only get worse as businesses grow larger.



Govt should prevent business from getting too powerful

LF is not really LF--Govt actually helped business.

People are not being treated equally

There are a lot of horrific abuses(child labor, low pay, etc)

LF was a new idea--no one really knew how it would work out.


Workers have no way to improve their lived b/c they are desperate and need jobs.


Uhhh, they did generate a lot of cash...

Owners didn’t earn anything so they don’t deserve anything

There is too much inequality.

Govt can help and handle regulations...

No comments:

Post a Comment