The economic mess and Mac's "populism"
I see that a lot of "free market" types are criticizing Mac for his "populism" because he is (in part) blaming the mess on "corporate greed." McCain has never claimed to be an economic libertarian. His political hero is after all Teddy "trust-buster" Roosevelt. Not even all of our Founders believed in laissez faire capitalism - think about their disagreements over "tariffs."
I can remember how excited I was when I first read Ayn Rand in the 60s and, later in the 70s, the economic libertarians who were inspired by her. It seemed to make a lot of sense when they claimed that true capitalism had never been tried; that, despite the fact that we have a relatively free market economy, we have always had a "managed economy."
Later I began to see the problems inherent in following laissez faire capitalism to its logical conclusion. What would stop modern "Robber Barons" from building empires that rival governments in power? "Nothing!" answered my libertarian friends. "They could have their own armies and even their own nuclear bombs."
"Whoa!" I thought. Obviously that would not necessarily be the outcome but it might be and then we'd be back in the Dark Ages of feudalism and warring barons. So, while laissez faire capitalism sounds good in theory, it may have problematic consequences. And, even if it were a good idea, it could probably never be put into practice for the same reason that the tax code can never be "simplified." There are just too many conflicting agendas.
But the "managed economy" also has serious flaws. It seems that the more that government interferes, the more problems it creates. Yet, government does have a role to play. As one of my favorite philosophers, John Locke, said: "The purpose of government is to protect private property."
I've run several successful businesses but I don't know much about macro-economics. Like Teddy R, McCain and most small business owners whom I know, I've seen enough immorality in the "greedy"guys who run big corporations that I want my elected representatives to keep a sharp eye on them. There has to be a balance between encouraging free enterprise and oversight and regulation.
I can remember how excited I was when I first read Ayn Rand in the 60s and, later in the 70s, the economic libertarians who were inspired by her. It seemed to make a lot of sense when they claimed that true capitalism had never been tried; that, despite the fact that we have a relatively free market economy, we have always had a "managed economy."
Later I began to see the problems inherent in following laissez faire capitalism to its logical conclusion. What would stop modern "Robber Barons" from building empires that rival governments in power? "Nothing!" answered my libertarian friends. "They could have their own armies and even their own nuclear bombs."
"Whoa!" I thought. Obviously that would not necessarily be the outcome but it might be and then we'd be back in the Dark Ages of feudalism and warring barons. So, while laissez faire capitalism sounds good in theory, it may have problematic consequences. And, even if it were a good idea, it could probably never be put into practice for the same reason that the tax code can never be "simplified." There are just too many conflicting agendas.
But the "managed economy" also has serious flaws. It seems that the more that government interferes, the more problems it creates. Yet, government does have a role to play. As one of my favorite philosophers, John Locke, said: "The purpose of government is to protect private property."
I've run several successful businesses but I don't know much about macro-economics. Like Teddy R, McCain and most small business owners whom I know, I've seen enough immorality in the "greedy"guys who run big corporations that I want my elected representatives to keep a sharp eye on them. There has to be a balance between encouraging free enterprise and oversight and regulation.
posted by Joubert at 1:13 PM
The Alliance
<< Home