Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Minimal government intervention in the markets is best

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate(s)

General supporting evidence

  • Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works?. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 67. - "We know that there are some things states cannot do - plan an entire economy. We know there are some things states must do - protect property rights. This is a 'must have' if there is to be a sophisticated market economy. There are also 'nice to haves'. Unfortunately, the mechanism of the state is at least as defective as that of the market. In fact, throughout most of history and in most countries today, it has been far more so. Governments do not only fail to provide 'nice to haves', they fail to provide 'must haves'. Often the most important violator of the conditions needed for markets to generate prosperity is government itself. It does not offer a remedy for market failures, but is a source of greater failures itself. This is not an accident. It is inherent in any political process, but it is truest, inevitably, in the poor countries that most need better government."

There are disproportionate pressures for governments to intervene

  • Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works?. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 65. - "There are strong pressures for governments to 'do something' where doing nothing might be far better. In any given area, government will hear only from those who want it to act. No politician or bureaucrat benefits from saying that he things it is better to leave ill alone, on the view that intervention is likely to make the position still worse. They also have their own interest in making concerned citizens dependent on them."

Counter-argument

See also

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.