NationStates Jolt Archive

It's laissez faire...

This thread is mine by right of conquest!

I recently finished reading 'The Jungle' and I was wondering how people in this day and age can argue for economic laissez faire when books like 'The Jungle' have showed what happens when economic laissez faire is in place. Any thoughts?

My apologies... I'll edit the post then.

I think it's fiction. If I wrote a novel claiming that we were all descended from purple flying space monsters, would you come on here and ask how anyone could believe otherwise?

Lawsuits.

Well I read up on what happened after it was written and it said that the President (I forget who at the time) ordered some of his trusted men to make a suprise inspection of the meat factories and despite a leak, they still discovered very bad conditions.

there are probably better arguements against laissez faire capitalism than a work of fiction. but i guess that most people defend it because they honestly think it's good, like marxists or social democrats etc.

I think it's fiction. If I wrote a novel claiming that we were all descended from purple flying space monsters, would you come on here and ask how anyone could believe otherwise?

I haven't read it myself, but as far as I recall that book is a journalistic report, not fiction.

I think it was a very good book and I think you're right, Sandkasten, though I doubt I can really prove it...

I think it was a very good book and I think you're right, Sandkasten, though I doubt I can really prove it...

I can't find much... Wikipedia only notes that he moved to Chicago, interviewed workers in the stockyards area and integrated himself as far as possible with the Lithuanian community there.
The story is indeed fiction, but based on thourough research.

Then read some capitalist fiction that depicts communism negatively. I'm sure then you'll be swayed to believe communism is evil, then. *yawns*

Then read some capitalist fiction that depicts communism negatively. I'm sure then you'll be swayed to believe communism is evil, then. *yawns*

Ah, right. You don't believe anything that's written down, then, do you?

What's the book about?

If it's about things being wrong in meat factories, then there are better arguments to be found in reality. I'll take my own country as an example:

Our government spends milions of Euro's a year to actually get rid of meat surplusses that already cost much money to produce.

We had several incidents concerning toxic (dioxine in chicken, bse in cows, antibiotics in pigs) in the late nineties, and the government waited MONTHS before announcing it to the public (to avoid panic.. morons..). Many people are going to bear the cosequences for this in time.

EDIT: Sorry if this turns out to be off-topic gibberish, but it does say something about the lacks in a lassez-faire economy.

What's the book about?

If it's about things being wrong in meat factories, then there are better arguments to be found in reality. I'll take my own country as an example:

Our government spends milions of Euro's a year to actually get rid of meat surplusses that already cost much money to produce.

We had several incidents concerning toxic (dioxine in chicken, bse in cows, antibiotics in pigs) in the late nineties, and the government waited MONTHS before announcing it to the public (to avoid panic.. morons..). Many people are going to bear the cosequences for this in time.

EDIT: Sorry if this turns out to be off-topic gibberish, but it does say something about the lacks in a lassez-faire economy.

That's one aspect of it, the appaling hygienical conditions. But the book on the whole focuses more on the conditions in which people had to work, the forced speed of work, the resulting accidents, the non-existent medical cover once accidents happened, job insecurity, miserable pay...
The story itself is a work of fiction, but the conditions it reported were real and the success of the book actually made the government take action and pass health safety legislation as well as some laws in an attempt to protect workers' rights.
Not that that changed much, apparently.

That's one aspect of it, the appaling hygienical conditions. But the book on the whole focuses more on the conditions in which people had to work, the forced speed of work, the resulting accidents, the non-existent medical cover once accidents happened, job insecurity, miserable pay...
The story itself is a work of fiction, but the conditions it reported were real and the success of the book actually made the government take action and pass health safety legislation as well as some laws in an attempt to protect workers' rights.
Not that that changed much, apparently.

Thank you for the updates! *smooches one to Sandkasten*

The key to free markets operating as the most efficient system is information and free movement.

The consumer today has a lot more information at their fingertips than anytime before. Companies do not need restrictive levels of regulations as the market, for the most part, will regulate them sufficiently.

If you don't like the practices of some company, don't shop there. Protest and organize a boycott if you feel strongly about it. If they are doing horrible things, people can easily impact the sales of the company to the point where it is no longer profitable to continue the unpopular activities. The free flow of information is all that is needed to keep people operating within the acceptable bounds of society.

A Laizzes Faire system would be a giant step towards a socialist revolution.

Well I read up on what happened after it was written and it said that the President (I forget who at the time)

Theodore Roosevelt was the president. He cared about the citizens of the US and wanted to protect them from wrong doing. Hard to believe he was a politician!

Laissez-faire is not a synonym for bad business practices, like some people in these forums would like to believe. In fact, bad business practices are a sign that a laissez-faire economy isn't working right.

Let's say, for instance, that Company A sells product A, but product A is faulty because Company A decided to cut corners to save costs. Now Company B sees that product A is faulty, so they decide to put out a very similar product, product B. Now, product B costs more because Company B decided not to cut corners, but product B isn't faulty. People soon realize that product B is more expensive than product A, but they've been told that product A is untrustworthy and that nobody has had any problems with product B. What do you think the buyers will do? That's right, buy product B, and if Company A wishes to stay in business for long, they have to change their practices to keep up with the quality of product B.

This is true in virtually all situations, for any market. If that company B never comes along in this type of situation, something is keeping them from doing so, be it the government or illegal/immoral/monopolistic practices by Company A, which is why the only government intervention in the economy should be to prevent any kinks in the open and free market. Anything else is a hindrance and should not exist.

One thing is that the Jungle is not objective journalism. There are groups that attack the historical veracity of the Jungle's claims as being factually wrong. Another issue is that The Jungle really does not prove anything on conditions in a modern laissez-faire society because it is a book at a time when economic conditions are so different from modern conditions that what was good for the time was not comparable to what is good today so therefore the claim is that economic growth will create better conditions for all. Finally, one can assert that governments do not really improve outcomes as much as they hurt workings within the society, this can even be seen with the result of the Jungle, Roosevelt regulated the meat industry in a manner that prevented competition and helped big business, and the changes put in place were opposed by Sinclair who wrote the book as they were just a handout to big business and a failure of government on some level. Ultimately, between the three points, it can be legitimately be believed that the Jungle is not a disproof of capitalism.

The key to free markets operating as the most efficient system is information and free movement.

The consumer today has a lot more information at their fingertips than anytime before. Companies do not need restrictive levels of regulations as the market, for the most part, will regulate them sufficiently.

If you don't like the practices of some company, don't shop there. Protest and organize a boycott if you feel strongly about it. If they are doing horrible things, people can easily impact the sales of the company to the point where it is no longer profitable to continue the unpopular activities. The free flow of information is all that is needed to keep people operating within the acceptable bounds of society.People are protesting against Wal-Mart, and yet it still does what it does.

Let's say, for instance, that Company A sells product A, but product A is faulty because Company A decided to cut corners to save costs. Now Company B sees that product A is faulty, so they decide to put out a very similar product, product B. Now, product B costs more because Company B decided not to cut corners, but product B isn't faulty. People soon realize that product B is more expensive than product A, but they've been told that product A is untrustworthy and that nobody has had any problems with product B. What do you think the buyers will do? Depends on how badly they need the product and how much more product B costs.

For those that don't know (and I suspect there's a few, which would explain how quiet this thread is), laissez-faire refers to the economic condition where there is a completely free market - no regulations whatsoever.

In reality of course, it's unworkable, or results in poor outcomes because people tend to forget that people like to be greedy.

Same can be said for even regulated economies of course - nothing is perfect. But it is sure as heck better to have some form of regulation regarding food safety, but it really should be the minimum required for high safety. Anything above that should be a bonus.

I feel that freedom of information and movement are the keys in ANY economic system. If anything should be protected, these two are the ones that should be protected. Not just for economic reasons, either.

As far as consumer information though, the corporations seem to have cottoned on to the concept of disinformation. So many studies providing conflicting information so that consumers don't know which way is up. Confuse somebody, and they'll go with what they think is 'safe' ie big corporation.

Laissez-faire is not a synonym for bad business practices, like some people in these forums would like to believe. In fact, bad business practices are a sign that a laissez-faire economy isn't working right.

Let's say, for instance, that Company A sells product A, but product A is faulty because Company A decided to cut corners to save costs. Now Company B sees that product A is faulty, so they decide to put out a very similar product, product B. Now, product B costs more because Company B decided not to cut corners, but product B isn't faulty. People soon realize that product B is more expensive than product A, but they've been told that product A is untrustworthy and that nobody has had any problems with product B. What do you think the buyers will do? That's right, buy product B, and if Company A wishes to stay in business for long, they have to change their practices to keep up with the quality of product B.

This is true in virtually all situations, for any market. If that company B never comes along in this type of situation, something is keeping them from doing so, be it the government or illegal/immoral/monopolistic practices by Company A, which is why the only government intervention in the economy should be to prevent any kinks in the open and free market. Anything else is a hindrance and should not exist.

That would entail the customers being actually informed about product A being faulty. Which is what companies will do their utmost to prevent.
The effects that the release of "The jungle" had on the work environments described in the book are a very good example about the population happily buying bad products and supporting appaling work environments due to their general ignorance about what they bought, how it was produced and where it came from.

Extensive labelling is the easiest way to keep the public informed on what their buying (assuming we're talking about the food industry, which the book was about), but labelling standards would need to be enforced by... guess who? Governments.

That would entail the customers being actually informed about product A being faulty. Which is what companies will do their utmost to prevent.
The effects that the release of "The jungle" had on the work environments described in the book are a very good example about the population happily buying bad products and supporting appaling work environments due to their general ignorance about what they bought, how it was produced and where it came from.

But bad working conditions doesn't mean that the product itself is faulty. Now, I dislike them as much as the next guy, but if people are willing to work in such conditions...

Extensive labelling is the easiest way to keep the public informed on what their buying (assuming we're talking about the food industry, which the book was about), but labelling standards would need to be enforced by... guess who? Governments.


I was talking about hearsay; you know, the "you're talking to a friend when they mention that their product A broke down and the company wouldn't give a refund for it" kind of situation.

Now, I dislike them as much as the next guy, but if people are willing to work in such conditions...

willing? i think most people who work in bad working conditions don't really have a choice.

But bad working conditions doesn't mean that the product itself is faulty. Now, I dislike them as much as the next guy, but if people are willing to work in such conditions...



To go back to the original example, the working conditions described in "The jungle" directly led to an extremely dangerous end product : Contaminated meat.
The forced speed didn't allow for any sort of quality or medical checks, and the nonexistent training resulted in careless treatment of the product by the employees, leading to meat contaminated with e coli and other fecal bacteria, salmonella, tapeworms and other parasites to be sold to the public.

You'll also notice that it was mentioned that the author befriended the Lithuanian population of the area at the time in order to obtain information about the working condition.
Imagine you're an imigrant, only partially understanding and speaking the language of the new country, illiterate, no specific skills, no clue about your legal situation or rights, but a family to feed. How many jobs do you think are on offer for you?
It's no coincidence that even today, the most high-risk jobs with the lousiest pay are performed by the kind of people this particular author was talking to a century ago.


I was talking about hearsay; you know, the "you're talking to a friend when they mention that their product A broke down and the company wouldn't give a refund for it" kind of situation.

For that to happen people have to buy product A first, though. And with no standards or controls, product A could potentially be lethal, depending on it's nature.
I wouldn't want to have to rely on hearsay when it comes to what sort of brakes are in my car, or how old that meat I'm buying really is.

willing? i think most people who work in bad working conditions don't really have a choice.

They can work somewhere else; that's the beauty of the free market system.

Imagine you're an imigrant, only partially understanding and speaking the language of the new country, illiterate, no specific skills, no clue about your legal situation or rights, but a family to feed. How many jobs do you think are on offer for you?


You want fries with that?

But seriously, there are plenty. Construction workers are a good example; they have a very tough job, but they get paid very well.

They can work somewhere else; that's the beauty of the free market system.

As I said, the trick is to FIND somewhere else that will take you...



You want fries with that?

A Perfect example ;)


But seriously, there are plenty. Construction workers are a good example; they have a very tough job, but they get paid very well.

Yes, and they generally don't hire untrained, illiterate staff without fluency of the language. For obvious reasons.

But bad working conditions doesn't mean that the product itself is faulty. Now, I dislike them as much as the next guy, but if people are willing to work in such conditions...


They were poor, unskilled Lithanian immigrants, many just off the boat from Lithaunia! The neighborhood they lived in was surrounded by garbage dumps too, but gues what? If you have no money, you live wherever you can afford and take whatever job you can find.

Also, there were a hell of a lot more people looking for jobs than there were jobs. The job market was absurdly competitive at the time (and not just among the Lithaunian community, but the Irish, Polish and all the other major immigrant groups in Chicago.) Guess what would happen if they were not willing to work in such a condition? They and their familiies would starve and the company would just hire someone else.

Also, there were a hell of a lot more people looking for jobs than there were jobs. The job market was absurdly competitive at the time (and not just among the Lithaunian community, but the Irish, Polish and all the other major immigrant groups in Chicago.) Guess what would happen if they were not willing to work in such a condition? They and their familiies would starve and the company would just hire someone else.

True, I forgot that at the time there was a large gap between the number of jobs and the numbers of workers. Apologies. But in the modern times, my point still stands.

Heh, sorry about the confusion.

True, I forgot that at the time there was a large gap between the number of jobs and the numbers of workers. Apologies. But in the modern times, my point still stands.

Heh, sorry about the confusion.

And yet, some sectors of USAmerican economy still rely on the same unskilled, uninformed, illiterate, non-English-speaking workers to do dangerous jobs without training for less than minimum wages...
If you want a more up-to-date read on the exact same subject, I suggest Fast Food Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Food_Nation) by Eric Schlosser. But be warned, you do run the risk of feeling sick at the mere sight of meat for a few month after reading it...

Personally I don't think laissez fair is a good or a bad thing, it just depends on the situation. Look at the roaring twenties. If it wasn't for the policy of laissez fair back then it wouldn't have been so successful. But then, in the depression when Hoover tried to stick to what had made the economy work so well for the last ten years look what happened. Keeping one policy through thick and thin is like a racing driver taking only wet or dry rubbers to a race.

Personally I don't think laissez fair is a good or a bad thing, it just depends on the situation. Look at the roaring twenties. If it wasn't for the policy of laissez fair back then it wouldn't have been so successful. But then, in the depression when Hoover tried to stick to what had made the economy work so well for the last ten years look what happened. Keeping one policy through thick and thin is like a racing driver taking only wet or dry rubbers to a race.

No, that is more like cutting off your head at the hint of a headache. The Great Depression wasn't caused by our laissez-faire economy; there were several causes, none of which have anything to do with the topic at hand (and just so you know, FDR didn't bring us out of the Depression; in fact, just as things were starting to getting better, the Social Security Act put us into an even deeper recession). Let the free market work freely and efficiently and you can't possibly go wrong. Ever.

True, I forgot that at the time there was a large gap between the number of jobs and the numbers of workers. Apologies. But in the modern times, my point still stands.Because there isn't as high of a gap between jobs and workers due to non laissez-faire programs and concepts.

No, that is more like cutting off your head at the hint of a headache. The Great Depression wasn't caused by our laissez-faire economy; there were several causes, none of which have anything to do with the topic at hand (and just so you know, FDR didn't bring us out of the Depression; in fact, just as things were starting to getting better, the Social Security Act put us into an even deeper recession). Let the free market work freely and efficiently and you can't possibly go wrong. Ever.

Oh, but he did get us out of the Great Depression. It was called "World War Two". And Truman kept us out of it for another 50+ years. He did this by creating a policy known as the "Cold War".

Has there ever really been a true "Laissez Fair" economy? Somalia, maybe? Parts of the Third World not under government control? Right after the Western Roman Empire ended?

Oh, but he did get us out of the Great Depression. It was called "World War Two". And Truman kept us out of it for another 50+ years. He did this by creating a policy known as the "Cold War".

Has there ever really been a true "Laissez Fair" economy? Somalia, maybe? Parts of the Third World not under government control? Right after the Western Roman Empire ended?

I meant his economic policies didn't save us, it was the military policy he (eventually) made.

"Laissez-faire" does not translate as "anarchy." All it means is that the government doesn't screw around with the economy (or, if they do, it is to a small degree). That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. But to answer your question: the US, from inception 'till now.

The Jungle is a classical example of Laissez Faire taken to the extreme. But arguments for it? I ask you to search for information regarding the profitability, efficiency, and reliability of New York City's Subway system, from inception to present, and the black market industry of private vans that operate against city ordinances.

I meant his economic policies didn't save us, it was the military policy he (eventually) made.

"Laissez-faire" does not translate as "anarchy." All it means is that the government doesn't screw around with the economy (or, if they do, it is to a small degree). That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. But to answer your question: the US, from inception 'till now.

So Corporate Welfare, a Federal Bank, propping up the economy through massive military spending, The War on Drugs, etc. are not "screw[ing] around with the economy"? Heck, even in the first decades of the USA it had, at the very least, tariffs. I just can't think of any society in the past thousand years or so that did not intervene in an economy unless that society was in a state in which the State did not exist. But even under those systems, something eventually fills the gaps and acts more or less like a State.