Originally
posted by
Oceana:
Lack of Gov't controll didn't work very well either. Look at the economies of the late 1800s early 1900. Instead of recessions every 7-10 years there were mass depressions instead.
To your point Oceana, That's more a product of the lack of a singular monetary policy than it is of government control. The US solved the problem by creating the Federal Reserve, which I'm fine with. This is precisely the problem the EU confronts since they don't tie fiscal to monetary policy because they have no shared monetary policy.
Coming back around to more government or less government, the broader argument of the thread. I would quote David Brooks' column in yesterday's NYT:
"According to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past 30 years, inequality in Sweden, Germany, Israel, Finland and New Zealand has grown as fast or faster than inequality in the United States, even though these countries have very different welfare systems."
More government does not mean less inequality. In fact, it oftens lead to greater inequality because the government is a less efficient means of filtering out the best solution to most problems. People worried about the redistribution of wealth vastly misunderstand how you sustain a rising tide that can lift all boats--it doesn't come from the wealthy, but it doesn't come from punishing investment either. It comes from creating a system by which innovation, creation and production are encouraged.