"Government regulations impose an enormous burden on large and small businesses in America, discourage productivity, and contribute substantially to our current economic woes.""We don't need a weakened government but a strong government that would take responsibility for the rights of the individual and care for the society as a whole."
The above does a good job summarizing the national debate that is at the core of every country's struggle to address the economic problems affecting us all.
Each could have been said by any number of people on both sides of the question. More government or less?
What do you think?
Who made these statements?
The first, Ronald Reagan, Vladimir Putin the second.
OK, I'll jump in - this can be a dicey topic....
ReplyDeleteWhat people often forget is that there are good reasons for many regulations. They were necessary because business, on it's own, chose to not do the right thing. Without gov't. regulation, we would still have children working in sweatshops, women dying in fires becuase they were locked in the factory, people denied jobs or promotions because they were black or women or disabled, or more of our drinking water polluted.
Reagan's quote does not make clear if he was saying there should be no government regulation or just as little as possible. Likewise Putin's does not clarify how "strong" the government should be. But we know enough about both to know that Reagan wanted less, Putin more.
ReplyDeleteMartial Law looks pretty good to people when crime, terrorism, etc reaches a point where they value their safety more than they do their freedom. So it is with business but at some point increased government regulation, no matter how well intended, will become a burden and when that happens, we will move back the other way.
It's about balance, equilibrium, which is very difficult to achieve.
ReplyDelete"The Great Society" did much good but hurt business in the process making the US much less competitive. This set the economy up for mid/late 70's "stagflation" made worse by Carter's lack of business sense. Reagan set this right but probably took the country too far in the opposite direction.
In many respects when it came to allowing business to self-police, Clinton was more a Republican president than many real Republicans . Bush got all the headlines as being too pro business but Clinton's White House was a very, very business lobbyist friendly place.
So now we head back to the "shelter" of government regulation but as Paul said, we won't be there long.
By the way, I'm a Democrat, in government and given what I've just said, I must remain anonymous.
Ok, you said you wanted opinion, here's mine.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all it's easy to say we need to protect people from "business" as if companies were nameless, faceless aliens come to earth, but remember, business is people and I'm not just talking about CEO's making multiple millions of dollars. "Business" is also millions of jobs for the people regulations are supposed to protect.
Second the more we tax and install regulations that restrict what business can do the less competitive they become and when that happens, jobs go away.
On the other hand I absolutely agree with Julie when she says that government regulation has prevented much injustice that occurred before there were regulations.
My advice is to simultaneously consider every proposed rule both in terms of the good and the bad it will do because there will always be both.
These statements and the men who made them really do highlight the differences between centrally planned and free market economies. Communism and capitalism.
ReplyDeleteObviously few clamoring for the government to "do something" think they are advocating communism but at some point that is exactly what government becomes when the government determines what companies can and cannot do.
I'm not saying we don't need regulation nor even that communism in all forms is bad. Just clarifying what we're debating.