Ask a question

Was Laissez Faire In Practice In Early/mid 19th Century Britain

What was a result of the laissez-faire economic policies followed by the Federal Government between the Civil?

None of the above. The Federal government did NOT follow laissez-faire policies.
Laissez-fAire means "hands off", "no intervention", etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-fai...

It does NOT mean "no regulation.


The government may not have regulated all that much, but it actively promoted the big business interests with subsidies of all sorts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rai...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_w...
http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html
http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch20/T20-3.php

supported the corporations against the workers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting

etc. None of this is laissez faire.

Even Republicans such as Eisenhower realized the extent to which the government was involved with the big corporations was dangerous for the country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

In those cases where the government did keep hands off, at the request of big business, we got major shocks: the Great Depression and the current/recent recession as the most obvious examples.

BTW, note that all of the above is true even if you meant 1890 and not 1990. Instead of the Great Depression and the current recession, I'd use the Long Depression (1873 - 1879) as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

There seems to be a broad swath of the American public that has no idea why smuggling appears so strongly in our fiction.  The US from 1800 - 1920 was governed basically under a Hamiltonian policy of Industrial policy with the largest component being tariffs.  In much of the rest of the world, the Adam Smith / David Ricardo consensus was gaining traction, but Alexander Hamilton thought that this was so dangerous he tried to prevent Adam Smith's book from even being published here.Like many things in politics, there was a division along party lines, and the Republicans, who were like today's Republicans in many other aspects of Laissez Faire, were actually more protectionist, arguing that protectionism should be above and beyond what is needed for revenue, whereas democrats believed that tariffs for revenue provided sufficient protectionism.The rest of the world, meanwhile, having become, Smith/Ricardians, thought the US would remain third world forever, as we consistently had the highest national tariffs anywhere in the world (at least among the biggest trade partners). When you hear modern conservatives talk now, they seem to have forgotten this history.  Most that I have discussed the issue with take the US as being a First World Country as an a priori, inevitable state of affairs, and then argue for doing the opposite of what we actually did in order to reach the next level.

Somehow you are using “progressive” in the literal sense and not the connotative one it has accrued in politics. The progressive movement was well over a hundred years away when the colonies declared their independence from Britain. The dominant political ideology at the time was republicanism (which entailed more than just forming a republic.) This, in collection with the ideas of post-revolutionary thinkers, later was described as “liberalism” in the Eurosphere. The trademarks of liberalism were strong individual natural rights, controlled and limited government which was viewed as a “necessary evil”, laissez-faire economics, freedom of association, and representative democracy. All of these things American conservatives are trying to conserve, although in some aspects they are doing it poorly (see: civil liberties, social freedoms)More than a century after the Declaration of Independence was signed the original progressives envisioned a new American state. They believed that the constitution was outdated, and that the U.S needed a more interventionist state which would embody a living organism called the “nation”. A lot of their sentiment was modeled after what was viewed as the modern, forward-thinking German state. Progressives were flauntingly illiberal. They supported eugenics through forced sterilization, imperialism, strong economic intervention, and social programming. Woodrow Wilson was probably tied with Jackson as the most racist U.S president. (1) He enforced discrimination in the U.S military, and made the lives of African-Americans a living hell by assisting in the revival of the KKK. Is that liberal? After losing popularity in the 1920’s, progressives chose to appropriate the term liberal to regain political power, and that is the story of how in the United States “liberal” has been used for its opposite, and everywhere else liberal has preserved its original connotation.Now to be fair, today’s self-proclaimed progressives have incorporated a lot of liberalism into their form of progressivism. But when it comes down to it, they are only tangentially liberal. Modern conservatives are quite content with liberal ideals as much as they are, if not in some ways more and others less.(1) Who Was the Most Racist Modern President? 5 Surprising Candidates Who Fit the Bill

WHY DID CHARLES DARWIN WANTED TO BE A SCIENTISt?

On Darwin's side, I guess. The thing is scientists don't respect arguments from authority ('Because I said so') so it doesn't matter whose theory it is. In fact there were several people at the same time who would have postulated the theory of evolution if Darwin had not. In fact it was the work of another naturalist that made Darwin finally publish because he wanted to be the first. Alfred Russell was doing the same sort of work. Evolution does't require belief. You can go look at the fossil records - it takes a very stubborn and ignorant person to deny that but even without one, the evidence for evolution would be overwhelming.

No they weren't allowed to fish or hunt! Not only because it was the landlords land, but because it was deliberate genocide! The Irish had plenty of food but it was stolen by English troops and was shipped to England by force! The English treated them like slaves! They were worked to death and starved to death! There was also a famine in Scotland, but very few people died there, but that was not the case in Catholic and always abused eldest colony of England! This was because Ireland was Catholic! Not only that but the Anglo "Irish" landlords (really Anglo Saxon) forced the Irish to still pay rent while they were starving! The potato blight also struck crops all around the world including North Carolina, but nobody starved there, only in Ireland! When Sir James Dombrain tried to help the Irish, he was scolded by Charles Trevelyan, who was very devoted to carrying out the genocide! Aid was prevented from getting to Ireland unless they paid a fee! I believe that the aid was deliberately worse then inadequate so the Irish would not only still die, but that they wouldn't look bad! A man claimed that England asked for aid for Ireland then took all the profit and aid that was supposed to be for poor Ireland, not England, who had plenty of food! (Ireland's food that is, cough cough!) Also they could have taken as much food as they needed and Ireland would still have plenty of food for her to eat, but England took all of it so Ireland starved! Not only that but when I read "Paddy's Lament", I learned that the Landlords would falsely promise compensation in exchange for the Irish destroying their own houses, and then mock them, when they knew full well that now they would have no shelter and be respectable to cold! That and breaking their promise was funny to them! Also when an eyewitness demanded an end to this, Trevelyan, said to him or her that, "We must not complain of what we really want to obtain." It wasn't a famine, it was a genocide!http://www.irishholocaust.org/http://www.irishcentral.com/news...the-british-tim-pat-coogan-moves-famine-history-unto-a-new-plane-181984471-238161151.htmlWhile Ireland fasted, England feasted.

What are the differences between Classical Economics & New Classical economics?

Classical = adam smith( i think)

neoclassical = monetarist and keynesian schools i think.

Neoclassical economics is a term variously used for approaches to economics focusing on the determination of prices, outputs, and income distributions in markets through supply and demand, often as mediated through a hypothesized maximization of income-constrained utility by individuals and of cost-constrained profits of firms employing available information and factors of production, in accordance with rational choice theory.[1] Neoclassical economics dominates microeconomics, and together with Keynesian economics forms the neoclassical synthesis, which dominates mainstream economics today.[2] There have been many critiques of neoclassical economics, often incorporated into newer versions of neoclassical theory as human awareness of economic criteria change.

Classical economics is widely regarded as the first modern school of economic thought. It is associated with the idea that free markets can regulate themselves.[1]Its major developers include Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill. Sometimes the definition of classical economics is expanded to include William Petty, Johann Heinrich von Thünen.

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776 is usually considered to mark the beginning of classical economics. The school was active into the mid 19th century and was followed by neoclassical economics in Britain beginning around 1870


Straight from wikipedia.

The beginning can be argued over different things. The basic reason that gave birth to capitalism which brought about the end of the feudal era was the increase in foreign trade. This was a time near the beginning of 16th century.This increase in the foreign trade was because merchants bought goods cheaply overseas and they were sold at very high margins in their countries. The period between the 16th and the 17th century was essential the birth phase of capitalism. There can be traces of merchants or banking families from some European countries back in the 14th century, but it was during this time that capitalism began to exist.Due to amassing vast amount of wealth from taxes, the countries tried to increase their share of trade as it was highly beneficial. Then came colonialization and setup of trading monopolies. Foreign merchants were banned as the colonised countries were exploited for every vast resource they had that could be profitable. Capital was making more capital. By the 17th century, merchants began to dominate the producers by exercising control over and changing the production process. At first, merchants were the link. Now they paid in advance and provided raw materials for production. This led to even bigger profits. And capitalism was the face of the economy now. There was more foreign trade than ever before and due to the merchant's control over the production process, there was huge increase in demand of raw materials. Many argue and it may even be true that Capitalism gave birth to the Industrial revolution and the increase in the monopoly of foreign trade was a big reason.