How Is Laissez Faire Capitalism Realistic

What is the strongest objection to laissez faire capitalism?

Assuming that by laissez-faire capitalism, you mean capitalism without any regulations or limitations and a minimal government to provide for property rights - then I have two primary objections:Market Failure - there are a wide variety of scenarios where capitalism and Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” do not provide an optimal result. Some form of regulation or government intervention are necessary to reach an optimal result.Theory of the Second Best - if you fail to achieve optimal conditions for a capitalist market and make any correction to the system (e.g. providing for property rights, or correcting for market failures), it is possible that the “second best” option will involve even more corrections or adjustments, rather than less.Together, this means that the best economic system isn’t necessarily the one with the fewest rules and regulations.For a truly informed reader, I recommend Joseph Heath’s Economics without Illusions - which takes a number of myths from both the liberal (more regulations/bigger government) and conservative (fewer regulations/smaller government) viewpoints and brings them into a more realistic and nuanced perspective.For the record, I’m pretty staunch believer in capitalism - and I think it’s still the best baseline economic system currently available. To paraphrase Churchill - it’s the worst system ever designed, except for all the others.

How did laissez-faire end in the United States?

It did not. It never began. It would be more interesting to ask how the myth that the US ever had a laissez-faire economy ever came about.The Federal government intervened repeatedly throughout the 19th century to create institutions and regulations that were felt to be necessary for economic success. Railways and shipping are the most obvious examples, but there were various banking regulations, rules about weights and measures, and so on. It also never endorsed international free trade until after the Second World War - first Alexander Hamilton and then Henry Clay laid down the foundations of a protectionist system of trade tariffs that ensured that British capital was invested in US-based businesses and not spent on making goods elsewhere to be sold into the US market and that system basically persisted until the early 20th century.What changed in the 20th century, as a consequence of the Great Depression, and in particular under the Roosevelt administration, was that interference in the economy moved from resolving disputes and frictions between producers to intervening directly to protected consumers and employees. Previously they had basically had no protection from the sale of shoddy goods, or employment on unreasonable or fraudulent terms.You can call this the “end of laissez-faire” if you like, but its just propaganda. There never was any laissez-faire for producers. We can see to this day, administrations coming into office promising growth and laissez-faire and actually trying to scrap consumer protections but leave producer subsidies in place.

In economics, is laissez-faire just free market economics without government intervention?

“In economics, is laissez-faire just free market economics without government intervention?”Sort of. More or less.The most important thing to recognize here and now, is that the very old term “laissez-faire” has a HISTORIC meaning and reason to have been coined, that rarely has anything to do with what ardent supporters of it TODAY are trying to arrange for.This becomes evident, if you pay close attention to the people who eagerly declare that “government intervention” doesn’t count when it refers to the government stepping in to protect the arbitrary decisions of property owners, and further, to protect people who may be disadvantaged by property owners decisions; but that it very much DOES count as “government intervention” when government DOES tell them what they can’t do with ownership.“Laissez Faire” has a specific historic place in the development of capitalist economic theory, but it’s a tricky concept to grasp accurately.

What is capitalism and what are some real life examples of it?

At it’s most basic explanation; An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production for trade and personal wealth.Capitalism hasn’t stayed the same for long though, it has evolved constantly since it’s inception. There are so many different styles and types of capitalism so if you’re interested you should read up on the different sub-categories of capitalist ideologies. Capitalism has had whole books written on the subject so there’s much to say about it.A real life version is all around us. We are currently living in a mixed-economy style of capitalism which may incorporate socialist elements such as welfare, partial or full nationalisation, social projects and funding, public property, etc. Not only that but modern capitalism has also swayed into certain angles such as neoliberalism with the Thatcher and Reagan governments.Neoliberalism could be considered a big influence on modern capitalism in the Western world. It’s a system that draws on older capitalist ideas of free markets and less government regulation [hence the term neo (new) - liberal (personal freedom)]. Our current systems are nowhere near full liberalism though such as laissez-faire which is a system of capitalism which is highly unregulated and has little connection to the government.In pure-capitalism the government doesn’t own any of the means of production of goods or services. The means of production are owned by individuals who operate them for a profit.The individuals who own these enterprises then employ people to operate and produce capital goods or services them in return for wage labour. So by definition, capitalism relies on a market and private enterprises to pay people money which can then be taxed by the government and also recirculated back to the elites as people buy capital goods or services. The obvious downside is that if there’s no market there’s unemployment and thus poverty, no taxes, etc.

What were the results of the economic theory of laissez-faire in the United States?

Non-existent. Except for a brief period of government-less pre-Capitalism in the late 17th century (when the population was infinitessimal), laissez-faire has never existed in the United States. The 18th century was denoted by British regulations. The 19th century was denoted by protectionism. The 20th century by social democracy. People (capitalists and socialists alike) were calling for laissez-faire in the 19th century, in contrast to the monopoly granting, protectionism of the United States government.