Should govenment interfere with economic affairs? Why?

Answer 1

Yes. Historically, some government "interference" has been beneficial. Government intervention is necessary to reconcile profitablilty with social needs. Here are a few in detail:

Child labor- Child laborers are cheap, plus they work longer at companies in terms of years. They can also be made to be loyal, they are little kids after all. How easy is it to instill that they only work at your company? Yet we abolished it, and established that children learn. Result? Businesses lost profits but we still gained as a society. Higher education, more ideas, innovations and new technology. More productivity because of increased intelligence.

Healthcare- Because government healthcare standards, we have people living longer. They are more productive becuase of that.

There are countless examples. Companies cannot form monopolies are engage in monopolisitic practices, no false advertising, false labeling, misleading ads...I could go on forever.

In short, governments do need to "interfere" with economic affairs when the general welfare of the public is threatened. The problem is determining what is in the interest of the general public's welfare.

Answer 2

Most laws regarding economic affairs come after-the-fact of violations of the principals that are newly protected. Aviation regulation is written because of crashes and disasters due to poor design. Now the weak link in aviation is more often than not the flight staff. Labor laws and environmental restrictions are the same. Something significantly bad has to normally occur before the law makes it into the record books. The 8 hour work day was in part to increase the average life expectancy of mill workers from a dismal 27 years. In the end, this regulation works in favor of the companies because the restriction is placed across the board on all competitors within the boarders of the country. It allows their workers to be healthier and more efficient. It turns out caring about the health of your workers actually helps the bottom line. Who knew?
The regulations become detrimental when trade is allowed with countries that don't respect the same laws. It is unfortunate when a nation disregards its own history by doing so.

Answer 3

Technically, no...at least not according to Adam Smith, the father of western capitalism. However, there are times when corporations get out of line, and only a government can get them back on track. One must be generally wary of government intervention regarding economic affairs though.

Answer 4

By economic affairs, I would guess you mean private corporations. The government controls the interest rates, production of money, and laws governing certain businesses. As far as government involvement in private corporations, yes. That way we wouldn't have another ENRON, World.com, and other theiving corporations that get greedy and end up harming the public.

Answer 5

i imagine American's can make a great argument that Arabs all started interfering in American affairs even as Arabs all started attempting to blow up American pastimes - fantastically a touch incident that surpassed off on 9-11, 2001. For the record, i don't experience smooth with the time period Arab. i think like it unfairly lumps mutually human beings of many diverse nationalities, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds. EDIT i'd favor to operate, that I oftentimes believe that what a sovereign u . s . a . does interior of this is own borders is not any man or woman else's organisation see you later as they don't look threatening the protection and protection of others, or violating straightforward human rights. i don't experience the U. S. has the right to attempt to dictate religious, political, or cultural factors of alternative international places.

Answer 6

yes, a government should control the amount of currency in circulation to facilitate exchange of goods and trade..this would control inflation and prevent opression of the people by taxation and interest and prevent an unseen minority of the super rich from controlling policy. It is the constitutional right of congress to print and control the amount of money in circulation.
as it stands a privately run bank, the federal reserve, has a complete monopoly and control of the amount of money in circulation and as u can see..it leads to widespread poverty, unfair taxes, and a national debt (created by the bank) that wont go away...why should it? the interest from the national debt loans are guaranteed by ur taxes...so yes congress should take control of it and kill the bank...

Answer 7

Only if market forces are failing. Certainly, some regulations are required (think USDA and food quality certification). Most industries need oversight, not interference.

Answer 8

No, of course not. Why should one side of the deal get to use force (government power) to get their way. If the government doesn't get involved, the only deals that get made are the ones that both parties permit.

Answer 9

No.

Each person has a natural right to voluntarily exchange his/her property for the property of someone else.

Using force to stop or hinder this natural act is immoral.