One of the things that has been grilled into my brain in almost every history class I have ever taken is the laissez faire policy.
What is this you ask?
Well, in French, it literally means to leave alone. This policy favors individual self-interest and competition. It opposes the regulation of commerce. So, in a sense, it is a "Lazy Fair".
A fair is known to have many games to play that claim that for a "small" price to pay for a few chances at winning a grand prize, usually a stuffed animal. Self-interest and competition both apply here. There is the competitive spirit when playing these games. The prize is wanted based on the person playing the game, wanted for "selfish" motives.
The Lazy Fair encourages economic individualism and aims to protect the individual's rights.
The goods and services provided are made for profit, not to satisfy needs. It is not only mere coincidence that the plethora of products available in today's market is what the public wants. In order for any profit to be made, production must be aimed toward what the public wants and needs. Remind anyone of a common fair? The game vendors all shouting to come play their game. That's exactly how our nation's marketplace works. The products call out for the people to come buy buy buy.
There has been a lot of talk of the Lazy Fair lately. Whether or not the nation's money is being used "properly" is a huge issue. The question now is, should the Lazy Fair get a new keeper? should the Lazy Fair be put under control?
This is an interesting comparison, Shuan. One of the big debates after the economic crash in 2008 was whether there should be more government regulation on Wall Street. Contrast that idea with Adam Smith, who said "an invisible hand" (I believe this is Ethics) should regulate business. I don't know if either works, but a change is needed.
ReplyDelete