>
>As a Canadian I feel somewhat alien to this discussion. And I would
>imagine that most people in other countries would feel the same.
>Political discourse in the United States has become so rhetorical, so
>motivated by unstated goals that the carefull distinctions outlined below
>are ignored, denied, etc. for political purposes that have nothing to do
>with reasonable intellectual discussion that it is probably best to
>ignore it.
>
>> > Dr. Schweitzer asks, "When did economists first equal government
>> > intervention with the use of force?"
>> >
I feel even more alienated, I guess, since I am still in a quandary over
the use of the term "intervention" for government activities in the economy.
I have found that it is most useful to think of the government as
integral to the economy rather than some sort of interloper. Surely the
government is both a producer and a consumer, indeed the largest, but the
question is whether it should be. There are many functions of government
that an economy cannot do without. To start the list, there is contract
enforcement. Others include police and defense, transportation infra-
structure, education, monetary control, etc. Government regulation is
necessary in a capitalist economy because capitalist institutions require
the firm to behave in an undesireable way, e.g. environmental externalities.
Government regulation of labor-management relations, as in the National
Labor Relations Act, provides the rules for workers and managers to function
together in greater harmony, to get on with producing rather than fighting.
The list is endless.
Economists who see all government activities as coercion are basing their
view on an extremely abstract theory if not plain ideology. Useful theory
sees government activity as essential to an advanced economy (although not
all governmental behavior will be good).
Andrew Larkin
Department of Economics
St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
612-255-2298 fax: 612-654-5198
|
