True or false argument: govt control of economy is always disastrous, therefore no govt control is excellent??

cant no govt control also be disastrous?


t or f arg: govt control has always been disastrous, therefore govt control always will be disastrous?


t or f fact: govt control always has been disastrous? [all capitalist economies are mixed to some degree] [limited-fortunes [lf] capitalism wd save 99% of bureaucratic suffocation of economy - every world empire so far has been suffocated to death by bureaucracy - once you allow unlimited fortunes, you have to be endlessly making %26amp; policing laws trying [%26amp; failing] to control the myriad bad effects - eg, antitrust laws, anticorruption]True or false argument: govt control of economy is always disastrous, therefore no govt control is excellent??
False! Stop listening to BS like this, read the books and stay in school.True or false argument: govt control of economy is always disastrous, therefore no govt control is excellent??
True, in fact the more complex the system the more likely government controls will not have their intended effect but will instead create more problems.





';It is no exaggeration to say that if we had had to rely on conscious central planning for the growth of our industrial system. It would never have reached the degree of differentiation, complexity, and flexibility it has attained. Compared with this method of solving the economic problem by means of decentralization plus automatic co-ordination, the more obvious method of central direction is incredibly clumsy, primitive, and limited in scope. That the division of labor has reached the extent which makes modern civilization possible we owe to the fact that it did not have to be consciously created but that man stumbled on a method by which the division of labor could be extended far beyond the limits within which it could have been planned. Any further growth of its complexity, therefore, far from making central direction more necessary, makes it more important than ever that we should use a technique which does not depend on conscious control.';





Only a free market will work.
false.come on bro.without the government here in singapore, it wont be false and it will in turn affect the economic.
False of course.





Whenever business gets itself into trouble it comes running to the government to be bailed out.





For example, when the Savings and Loans scandal hit in the 1980s, the same Wall Street wonder boys who had been lauded as the flag bearers of free enterprise had to have their mess remedied by the tax payer.





In another example, the car industry always bleats on about how it is over regulated and that the Government interferes too much in its affairs. But during the 1930s, it was able to get the Government to build a national roads network costing billions of dollars. Unlike the railroads, who had to pay for their own tracks without government help.





Take also the fast food industry. Since the Reagan years it has successfully lobbied to reduce regulation about the way it can operate, such as not increasing the minimum wage. Yet at the same time the big burger franchises receive millions of dollars from the Government for training programmes for new employees. And everyone knows that they dont need training because the industry uses machines that are so intuitive and simple that staff can be hired and fired at will without down time for training.





Its typical business bullshit to say that no intervention is best.