Question for libertarians only

[flaja]

I ask that non-libertarians refrain from answering this post, please.

It was said earlier today that government regulation causes economic recessions and that we should have a laissez-faire economy. But does laissez-faire really help the economy avoid recession?

Starting when the federal government began operation there were 15 economic panics/recessions- one on average every 54.78 months. Their average duration was 33.8 months.

There were certainly federal regulatory laws before 1902, but the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt is generally taken as marking the end of the laissez-faire era of federal economic regulation.

Using the textbook definition of recession (with a recession being relative to what came immediately before- there was a recession in 1937 during the Great Depression even though the entire economy was worse than it had been at its height in the Roaring Twenties) there have been 21 panics/recessions since 1902 occurring on average every 43.33 months and lasting an average of 14.75 months (not counting the current ongoing recession that began last year).

So how exactly is a hands-off attitude from the government good for the economy? How does laissez-faire help prevent economic recessions? Recessions post-laissez-faire have been more frequent, but their durations have been shorter than the ones during laissez-faire. How can this be if laissez-faire is supposed to be better for the economy?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

first, I dont' think any modern libertarian is mandating a 'hands off' policy on the economy. That said, we think the fed interferes way too much. monopolies should be discouraged and, if necessary, broken up.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

first, I dont' think any modern libertarian is mandating a 'hands off' policy on the economy. That said, we think the fed interferes way too much. monopolies should be discouraged and, if necessary, broken up.

Obama, meddling with the economy, will make the recession last a lot longer than it should.

 

[flaja]

first, I dont' think any modern libertarian is mandating a 'hands off' policy on the economy.

http://www.lp.org/platform

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,”

Including economics?

“Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.”

This isn’t advocating a hands-off policy on the economy?

“A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.”

If this isn’t laissez-faire what is?

 

[flaja]

Obama, meddling with the economy, will make the recession last a lot longer than it should.

You know this how?

 

[Epicurus]

I'm a bit further right economically than STY.

I would say that's it's vastly unfair to compare the 19th century to the 20th in terms of economics.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

http://www.lp.org/platform

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,”

Including economics?

“Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.”

This isn’t advocating a hands-off policy on the economy?

no, this is an economic policy based on the initial qualifications of interstate commerce in the commerce clause, which didn't affect an individual and his farmers market.

“A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.”

If this isn’t laissez-faire what is?

do you see anywhere in that paragraph that says the proper role of government is to stay out?

the 'laissez-faire' market you're talking about is the trade between private entities, which entities should be free and clear to do however they wish, because only those entities are making the market work. The governments sole role in that trade should be to make sure it's legal and fair.

 

[flaja]

I'm a bit further right economically than STY.

I would say that's it's vastly unfair to compare the 19th century to the 20th in terms of economics.

How so? Baring an external event, like war or natural disaster, I am inclined to see speculation as the chief cause of the business cycle. People with money speculate to make more and people without money borrow so they can buy the things they need and want hoping that they will still have a job or a crop when the loans come due. Speculation and borrowing either creates a false demand or encourages the economy’s productive output to out-pace the input of labor and capital. This invariably creates a bubble and the when the bubble bursts you have recession. These practices happen regardless of the century.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

http://www.lp.org/platform

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives,”

Including economics? This isn’t advocating a hands-off policy on the economy?

If this isn’t laissez-faire what is?

You know that most libertarians are Republicans and Independents, right? Some are even Democrats. Quoting the LP platform as a means of detrmining what libertarians are up to in this country is pretty bad homework overall.

The various type of libertarians are probably all against the various government bailouts, but other than this, there is still great diversity of opinion on economic issues, or which economic issues matter.

Some libertarians might care about taxes, some central banking and currency, some about government subsidies and the like. And some advocate different solutions on a number of these topics, though generally a totally hands off economy is an idea reserved for idea people and academics and not for people trying to achieve a change in policy.

 

[flaja]

You know that most libertarians are Republicans and Independents, right? Some are even Democrats.

So? I seriously doubt that many of these non-party libertarians would not accept a hands-off policy when it comes to government regulation- which was the gist of the post I was responding to.

 

[Epicurus]

How so? Baring an external event, like war or natural disaster, I am inclined to see speculation as the chief cause of the business cycle. People with money speculate to make more and people without money borrow so they can buy the things they need and want hoping that they will still have a job or a crop when the loans come due. Speculation and borrowing either creates a false demand or encourages the economy’s productive output to out-pace the input of labor and capital. This invariably creates a bubble and the when the bubble bursts you have recession. These practices happen regardless of the century.

You would be wrong.

 

[flaja]

You would be wrong.

Possible, but do you have a better explanation for the boom and bust pattern of the economic cycle or why recessions since laissez-faire ended have been of shorter duration on average than they had been with laissez-faire?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Possible, but do you have a better explanation for the boom and bust pattern of the economic cycle or why recessions since laissez-faire ended have been of shorter duration on average than they had been with laissez-faire?

most likely because they've been real recoveries instead of inflated balloons propped up by the feds.