Thread: Positive non-Interventionism

Simply put; would you prefer if your nation of residence were closer/farther to a positive non-interventionist system?

From Wikipedia:

According to Cowperthwaite:

"In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."

According to Haddon-Cave:

"Positive non-interventionism involves taking the view that it is normally futile and damaging to the growth rate of an economy, particularly an open economy, for the Government to attempt to plan the allocation of resources available to the private sector and to frustrate the operation of market forces"

Haddon-Cave goes on to say that the "positive" part means the government carefully considers each possible intervention to determine "where the advantage" lies, and although usually it will come to the conclusion that the intervention is harmful, sometimes it will decide to intervene.

This policy means that the government had to respond when industries with social obligations ran into trouble and when an institution needed regulation to prevent inequitable practices.

Originally Posted by Feetie

I said don't know don't care. But I do care it was just the only choice. I think we need to focus more on consequences to those responcible for the problems. Example if I shoot you I go to jail and get the chair. If a corporation dumps toxic waste into a river and kills 1,000's they get fined. That to me is the problem with the free market.

To me, that's not a market problem, but a legal problem. Tainted milk on the mainland? Dead CEOs. Embezzlement and fraud in Korea's top chaebol? Long-term prison sentence; and so on.

But thanks for the reply.

Originally Posted by John J

State run governments are failures at business.

I'm not sure why you said that and voted such; since positive non-interventionism is perhaps the most right-wing, free-market philosophy currently in action. Hong Kong is consistently ranked #1 in economic freedom. It does have some government interventions to secure a good standard of living.

Originally Posted by Feetie

But it is a market problem because if the CEO's can do whatever they want without the threat of punishment and the knowledge that like BP oil spill the government will run in and clean up the mess then there is no way to back up the regulation. So as we have had for the past 30 years we have a government with not teeth and a broom to sweep up the mess.

I have to repeat that I think it's a legal problem; the CEO should have a threat of punishment because of the LAW. If the legislation doesn't put in the necessary series of regulations, punishments, and so on; then it's their fault for not having consequences.

If the law doesn't have the teeth, that's a legal problem, a judicial one.

Originally Posted by John J

True. This is the problem with centrally planned economies. Too much interference will eventually bog down the system.

You're not grasping the concept that a positive non-interventionist system is the most free-market system ever to have been implemented in modern history.