“The later historians of the New Deal and the Great Society sneered that the idea of ‘laissez faire’ was an abdication of governmental responsibility, but this was propaganda. The best translation of the term is the activist ‘let us do,’ not the passive ‘let us be,’”
I’m at a loss as to what’s the difference. Is there more government intervention in the latter than the former? If so, I prefer the New Deal’s version.
The real propaganda is the idea that we ever had real laissez faire. We certainly haven’t had it since the adoption of the Constitution. From what I’ve heard, commerce wasn’t smooth under the Articles, either.
Just when was this golden era of free markets, and do I have to walk through a looking glass to get back?
“The best translation of the term is the activist ‘let us do,’ not the passive ‘let us be,’”
Now that I read the paragraph again, I see perhaps the article meant that “let us do” was a call for government intervention, and hence my ramblings are unecessary.
I disagree. Wasn’t the popularization of the phrase first to be found in the 18th century French Physiocrat school? And didn’t it mean “hands off”? If you want to say America wasn’t hands off during the guilded age, don’t bastardize the term laissez faire. Find a new term.
"See what happens when you don't have any regulations! We need more gov. regulation not less!"
The fact is that there are MANY laws and regulations on the books already that were ignored (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) and the regulations that were applied caused much of the problems in the mortgage markets.