Avinash_Tyagi said:
First off in europe there are many examples where government involvement has been a success, resulting in situations which the free market could not bring about, just shows that well designes government systems can work well. Also you're a fool if you think that the free market will result in beneficial outcomes on its own, first off there is the fact that information is not always shared equally, and then their is the propensity for the market to become irrational, this current crisis is a good example of the irrationality of the market and of information not being equal. Also during the Depression many of the banks were allowed to fail, guess what we had a decade of economic collapse, you really have no idea do you, allowing the banks to fail would be the dumbest move ever, without a functioning financial market money would not flow through the economy, people would hoarde their cash and unemployment would skyrocket. |
Except Europeon countries also see less economic growth and higher rates of unemployment.
Less government intervention largely coincides with larger government growth and lower unemployment.
Denmark aside due to flexicity which actually has a lot less government controls in a lot of areas in europe and even the rest of europe can't copy.
So it really depends on what you want your economy to do... much better with slight chances of systematic failure... (though the US economy is still better then most europeon economies GDP wise) or safer with slower growth.
The saftey of the section option usually seems mitigated by the growth of the first option though... such growth more then making up for what would be lost.








