Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laissez-faire (/lsefr/; French: [lsef]; from French: laissez faire, lit. 'let do') is an economic system in
which transactions between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges,
tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French phrase and basically translates to "let
(it/them) do", but in this context usually means to "let go".[1]

1 Etymology and usage
2 Fundamentals
3 History of laissez-faire debate
3.1 Europe
3.2 United States
4 Raw capitalism
5 Critiques
6 See also
7 References
8 Bibliography
9 Further reading

Etymology and usage

The term laissez faire likely originated in a meeting that took place around 1681 between powerful French
Comptroller-General of Finances Jean-Baptiste Colbert and a group of French businessmen headed by M. Le
Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants
and help promote their commerce, Le Gendre replied simply "Laissez-nous faire" ("Leave it to us" or "Let us
do [it]," the French verb not having to take an object).[2]

The anecdote on the ColbertLe Gendre meeting appeared in a 1751 article in the Journal conomique, written
by French minister and champion of free trade Ren de Voyer, Marquis d'Argensonalso the first known
appearance of the term in print.[3] Argenson himself had used the phrase earlier (1736) in his own diaries, in a
famous outburst:

Laissez faire, telle devrait tre la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est
civilis ... Dtestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos
voisins ! Il n'y a que la mchancet et la malignit du cur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et
lintrt y est oppos. Laissez faire, morbleu ! Laissez faire!![4]

("Let you do, which should be the motto of all public power, since the world was civilized ... (It is)
a detestable principle of those that want to enlarge (themselves) but by the abasement of our
neighbors. There is but the wicked and the malignant heart(s) (who are) satisfied by this principle
and (its) interest is opposed. Let you do, alas.")[5]

Vincent de Gournay, a French Physiocrat and intendant of commerce in the 1750s, popularized the term laissez
faire - he allegedly adopted it from Franois Quesnay's writings on China.[6] Quesnay coined the phrase laissez-
faire, laissez-passer,[7] laissez-faire being a translation of the Chinese term wu wei.[8] Gournay ardently
supported the removal of restrictions on trade and the deregulation of industry in France. Delighted with the
Colbert-Le Gendre anecdote,[9] he forged it into a larger maxim all his own: "Laissez faire et laissez passer"
('Let do and let pass'). His motto has also been identified as the longer "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde
va de lui mme!" ("Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!"). Although Gournay left no written tracts
on his economic policy ideas, he had immense personal influence on his contemporaries, notably his fellow
Physiocrats, who credit both the laissez-faire slogan and the doctrine to Gournay.[10]

Before d'Argenson or Gournay, P. S. de Boisguilbert had enunciated the phrase "on laisse faire la nature" ('let
nature run its course').[11] D'Argenson himself, during his life, was better known for the similar but less-
celebrated motto "Pas trop gouverner" ("Govern not too much").[12] But Gournay's use of the laissez-faire
phrase (as popularized by the Physiocrats) gave it its cachet.

The Physiocrats proclaimed Laissez-faire in eighteenth-century France, placing it at the very core of their
economic principles, and famous economists, beginning with Adam Smith, developed the idea.[13] "It is with
the physiocrats and the classical political economy that the term "laissez faire" is ordinarily associated."[14] The
book Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State states:

The physiocrats, reacting against the excessive mercantilist regulations of the France of their day,
expressed a belief in a "natural order" or liberty under which individuals in following their selfish
interests contributed to the general good. Since, in their view, this natural order functioned
successfully without the aid of government, they advised the state to restrict itself to upholding the
rights of private property and individual liberty, to removing all artificial barriers to trade, and to
abolishing all useless laws.[13]

In England, a number of "free trade" and "non-interference" slogans had been coined as early as the 17th
century. But the French phrase laissez faire gained currency in English-speaking countries with the spread of
Physiocratic literature in the late 18th century. George Whatley's 1774 Principles of Trade (co-authored with
Benjamin Franklin) re-told the Colbert-LeGendre anecdote this may mark the first appearance of the phrase
in an English-language publication.[15]

Laissez-faire, a product of the Enlightenment, was "conceived as the way to unleash human potential through
the restoration of a natural system, a system unhindered by the restrictions of government."[16] In a similar
vein, Adam Smith viewed the economy as a natural system and the market as an organic part of that system.
Smith saw laissez-faire as a moral program, and the market its instrument to ensure men the rights of natural
law.[16] By extension, free markets become a reflection of the natural system of liberty.[16] "For Smith, laissez-
faire was a program for the abolition of laws constraining the market, a program for the restoration of order and
for the activation of potential growth."[16]

However, Adam Smith[17] and the notable classical economists, such as Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo,
did not use the phrase. Jeremy Bentham used the term, but it was probably James Mill's reference to the
"laissez-faire" maxim (together with "pas trop gouverner") in an 1824 entry for the Encyclopdia Britannica
that really brought the term into wider English usage. With the advent of the Anti-Corn Law League (founded
1838), the term received much of its (English) meaning.[18]

Adam Smith first used the metaphor of an "invisible hand" in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
to describe the unintentional effects of economic self-organization from economic self-interest.[19] The idea
lying behind the "invisible hand", though not the metaphor itself, belongs to Bernard de Mandeville and his
Fable of the Bees (1705). In political economy, that idea and the doctrine of laissez-faire have long been
closely related.[20] Some have characterized the invisible-hand metaphor as one for laissez-faire,[21] though
Smith never actually used the term himself.[17]

In Third Millennium Capitalism (2000), Wyatt M. Rogers, Jr. notes a trend whereby recently "conservative
politicians and economists have chosen the term 'free-market capitalism' in lieu of laissez-faire".[22]

Being a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[16]
Being a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[16]

1. The individual is the basic unit in society.

2. The individual has a natural right to freedom.
3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their
propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.[23]

These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-
disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have
always emphasized.[16] To maximize freedom and allow markets to self-regulate, early advocates of laissez-
faire proposed a Impt unique, a tax on land rent to replace all taxes that damage welfare by penalizing

History of laissez-faire debate


In Europe, the laissez-faire movement was first widely promoted by the physiocrats, a movement that
originated with Vincent de Gournay, a successful merchant. Gournay adopted the concept, which is the
translation of Chinese philosophy wu wei,[25] from Franois Quesnay's writings on China.[8] Gournay held that
the government should allow the laws of nature to govern economic activity, with the state only intervening to
protect life, liberty, and property. His ideas were taken up by Franois Quesnay and Turgot, Baron de l'Aulne.
Quesnay had the ear of the King of France, Louis XV, and in 1754 persuaded him to give laissez-faire a try. On
September 17, the King abolished all tolls and restraints on the sale and transport of grain, and for more than a
decade the experiment was a success. But then, in 1768, there was a poor harvest, and the cost of bread rose so
high that there was widespread starvation, while merchants exported grain in order to obtain the best profit. In
1770, the edict allowing free trade was revoked.[26]

The doctrine of laissez-faire became an integral part of nineteenth-century European liberalism.[13] "Just as
liberals supported freedom of thought in the intellectual sphere, so were they equally prepared to champion the
principles of free trade and free competition in the sphere of economics. The state was to be merely a passive
policeman, protecting private property and administering justice, but not interfering with the affairs of its
citizens. Businessmen, and particularly British industrialists, were quick to associate these principles with their
own economic interests."[13] Many of the ideas of the physiocrats spread throughout Europe, and were adopted
to a greater or lesser extent in Sweden, Tuscany, Spain, and after 1776 in the newly created United States.
Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, met Quesnay and acknowledged his influence.[27]

In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded and became an influential voice for laissez-faire
capitalism.[28] Laissez-faire advocates opposed food aid for famines occurring within the British Empire; in
1847, referring to the famine then underway in Ireland, founder of The Economist James Wilson wrote, "It is no
man's business to provide for another."[29] However, The Economist campaigned against the Corn Laws that
protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less
expensive foreign imports of cereal products. The Great Famine in Ireland in 1845 led to the repeal of the Corn
Laws in 1846. The tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high were repealed.[30] However,
repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three

A group calling itself the Manchester Liberals, to which Richard Cobden and Richard Wright belonged, were
staunch defenders of free trade, and their work was carried on, after the death of Richard Cobden in 1866, by
The Cobden Club.[32] In 1860, a trade treaty was signed between Britain and France, after which several of
these treaties were signed among other European countries. The breakdown of the laissez-faire practised by the
British Empire was partly led by British companies eager for state support of their positions abroad, in
particular British oil companies.[33]
United States

Frank Bourgin's study of the Constitutional Convention and subsequent decades argues that direct government
involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.[34] The reason for this was the economic and
financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly-won
political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes
of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and
commerce was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the
United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny. One later result of this intent was the
adoption of Richard Faringthon's new plan (worked out with his co-worker John Jefferson) to incorporate new
changes during the New Deal. Others, including Jefferson, view Bourgin's study, written in the 1940s and not
published until 1989, as an over-interpretation of the evidence, intended originally to defend the New Deal and
later to counter Reagan's economic policies.[35]

Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that classical liberalism in the U.S. in the 19th century had distinctive

at the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of laissez-faire. To the vast majority of
American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean no government intervention at all. On the
contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal
improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention in behalf of

Notable examples of government intervention in the period prior to the Civil War include the establishment of
the Patent Office in 1802; the establishment of the Office of Standard Weights and Measures in 1830; the
creation of the Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1807 and other measures to improve river and harbor navigation;
the various Army expeditions to the west, beginning with Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery in 1804 and
continuing into the 1870s, almost always under the direction of an officer from the Army Corps of
Topographical Engineers, and which provided crucial information for the overland pioneers that followed; the
assignment of Army Engineer officers to assist or direct the surveying and construction of the early railroads
and canals; the establishment of the First Bank of the United States and Second Bank of the United States as
well as various protectionist measures (e.g., the tariff of 1828). Several of these proposals met with serious
opposition, and required a great deal of horse-trading to be enacted into law. For instance, the First National
Bank would not have reached the desk of President George Washington in the absence of an agreement that
was reached between Alexander Hamilton and several southern members of Congress to locate the capitol in
the District of Columbia. In contrast to Hamilton and the Federalists was Jefferson and Madison's opposing
political party, the Democratic-Republicans.

Most of the early opponents of laissez-faire capitalism in the US subscribed to the American School. This
school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who proposed the creation of a
government-sponsored bank and increased tariffs to favor northern industrial interests. Following Hamilton's
death, the more abiding protectionist influence in the antebellum period came from Henry Clay and his
American System.

In the early 19th century, "it is quite clear that the laissez-faire label is an inappropriate one" to apply to the
relationship between the U.S. government and industry.[37] In the mid-19th century, the United States followed
the Whig tradition of economic nationalism, which included increased state control, regulation, and
macroeconomic development of infrastructure.[38] Public works such as the provision and regulation
transportation such as railroads took effect. The Pacific Railway Acts provided the development of the First
Transcontinental Railroad.[38] In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United
States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861
(3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872).
Following the Civil War, the movement towards a mixed economy accelerated. Protectionism increased with
the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897. Government regulation of the economy expanded
with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

The Progressive Era saw the enactment of more controls on the economy, as evidenced by the Wilson
Administration's New Freedom program.

Following World War I and the Great Depression, the United States turned to a mixed economy, which
combined free enterprise with a progressive income tax, and in which, from time to time, the government
stepped in to support and protect American industry from competition from overseas. For example, in the
1980s, the government sought to protect the automobile industry by "voluntary" export restrictions from
Japan.[39] Pietro S. Nivola wrote in 1986:

By and large, the comparative strength of the dollar against major foreign currencies has reflected
high U.S. interest rates driven by huge federal budget deficits. Hence, the source of much of the
current deterioration of trade is not the general state of the economy, but rather the government's
mix of fiscal and monetary policies that is, the problematic juxtaposition of bold tax reductions,
relatively tight monetary targets, generous military outlays, and only modest cuts in major
entitlement programs. Put simply, the roots of the trade problem and of the resurgent protectionism
it has fomented are fundamentally political as well as economic.[40]

A more recent advocate of total laissez-faire has been objectivist Ayn Rand, who described it as "the abolition
of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and
Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State."[41] This
viewpoint is summed up in what is known as the Iron Law of Regulation, which states that all that all
government economic regulation eventually leads to a net loss in social welfare.[42]

Raw capitalism
A closely related conception is that of raw/pure capitalism or unrestrained capitalism that refers to capitalism
free of social regulations,[43] with low, minimal[44] or no government and operating almost entirely on the
profit motive. Other than laissez-faire economics and anarcho-capitalism it is not associated with a school of
thought and typically has a bad connotation which hints towards a perceived need for restraint due to social
needs and securities that can't be adequately responded to by companies with just a motive for making profit.

Robert Kuttner states that "for over a century, popular struggles in the democracies have used the nation-state to
temper raw capitalism. The power of voters has offset the power of capital. But as national barriers have come
down in the name of freer commerce, so has the capacity of governments to manage capitalism in a broad
public interest. So the real issue is not 'trade' but democratic governance.[45]

The main issues of raw capitalism are said to lie in its disregard for quality, durability, sustainability, respect for
the environment and human beings as well as a lack of morality.[46] From this more critical angle companies
might (naturally) aim to "maximise profits" at the expense of workers' and broader social interests.[47]

Raw/hyper-capitalism is a prime motive of cyberpunk in dystopian works such as Syndicate.[48][49]

Over the years, a number of economists have offered critiques of laissez-faire economics.

Adam Smith acknowledged deep moral ambiguities towards the system of capitalism.[50] Smith had severe
misgivings concerning some aspects of each of the major character-types produced by modern capitalist
society: the landlords, the workers, and the capitalists.[50] "The landlords' role in the economic process is
passive. Their ability to reap a revenue solely from ownership of land tends to make them indolent and inept,
and so they tend to be unable to even look after their own economic interests."[50] "The increase in population
should increase the demand for food, which should increase rents, which should be economically beneficial to
the landlords. Thus, according to Smith, the landlords should be in favour of policies which contribute to the
growth in the wealth of nations. Unfortunately, they often are not in favour of these pro-growth policies,
because of their own indolent-induced ignorance and intellectual flabbiness."[50]

The British economist John Maynard Keynes condemned laissez-faire economic policy on several
occasions.[51] In The End of Laissez-faire (1926), one of the most famous of his critiques, Keynes argues that
the doctrines of laissez-faire are dependent to some extent on improper deductive reasoning, and, Keynes says,
the question of whether a market solution or state intervention is better must be determined on a case-by-case

Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek stated that a freely competitive, laissez-faire banking industry tends to be
endogenously destabilizing and pro-cyclical. He stated that the need for central banking control was

See also
Economic liberalism History of economic thought
Anarcho-capitalism Libertarianism
Corporatocracy Market fundamentalism
Deregulation Neoliberalism
Privatization Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Free-market anarchism
History of economic thought
1. Laissez-faire (, Business Dict
2. Journal Oeconomique (
_-_janvier_1751.djvu) 1751, Article by the French minister of finance.
3. M. d'Argenson, "Lettre au sujet de la dissertation sur le commerce du marquis de Belloni', Avril 1751,
Journal Oeconomique p. 111 (
=editions%3ANYPL33433007441680&lr&pg=RA3-PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false). See A. Oncken,
Die Maxime Laissez faire et laissez passer, ihr Ursprung, ihr Werden, 1866
4. as quoted in J. M. Keynes, 1926, "The End of Laissez Faire". Argenson's Mmoirs were published only
in 1858, ed. Jannet, Tome V, p. 362. See A. Oncken (Die Maxime Laissez faire et laissez passer, ihr
Ursprung, ihr Werden, 1866)
5. Original somewhat literal translation using
6. Baghdiantz McCabe, Ina (2008). Orientalism in Early Modern France: Eurasian Trade Exoticism and
the Ancien Regime. Berg Publishers. pp. 27172. ISBN 978-1-84520-374-0.
7. "Encyclopdia Britannica" (
Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc.
8. Clarke, J.J. (1997). Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and Western Thought.
Routledge. p. 50. ISBN 978-0415133760.
9. According to J. Turgot's "Eloge de Vincent de Gournay," Mercure, August, 1759 (repr. in Oeuvres of
Turgot, vol. 1 p. 288 (
10. Gournay was credited with the phrase by Jacques Turgot ("Eloge a Gournay", Mercure 1759), the
Marquis de Mirabeau (Philosophie rurale 1763 and Ephmrides du Citoyen, 1767.), the Comte d'Albon
(,"loge Historique de M. Quesnay", Nouvelles Ephmrides conomiques, May, 1775, pp. 13637. )
and DuPont de Nemours (Introduction to Oeuvres de Jacques Turgot, 180811, Vol. I, pp. 257, 259
(Daire ed.)) among others
11. "Tant, encore une fois, qu'on laisse faire la nature, on ne doit rien craindre de pareil", P.S. de
Boisguilbert, 1707, Dissertation de la nature des richesses, de l'argent et des tributs.
12. DuPont de Nemours, op cit, p. 258. Oncken (op.cit) and Keynes (op.cit.) also credit the Marquis
d'Argenson with the phrase "Pour gouverner mieux, il faudrait gouverner moins" ("To govern best, one
needs to govern less"), possibly the source of the famous "That government is best which governs least"
motto popular in American circles, attributed variously to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Henry
13. Fine, Sidney. Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State. United States: The University of Michigan
Press, 1964. Print
14. Macgregor, Economic Thought and Policy (London, 1949), pp. 5467
15. Whatley's Principles of Trade are reprinted in Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol.2, p. 401 (https://books.g
16. Gaspard, Toufick. A Political Economy of Lebanon 19482002: The Limits of Laissez-faire. Boston:
Brill, 2004. ISBN 978-9004132597
17. Roy C. Smith, Adam Smith and the Origins of American Enterprise: How the Founding Fathers Turned
to a Great Economist's Writings and Created the American Economy, Macmillan, 2004, ISBN 0-312-
32576-2, pp. 1314.
18. Abbott P. Usher; et al. (1931). "Economic History The Decline of Laissez Faire". American Economic
Review. 22 (1, Supplement): 310.
19. Andres Marroquin, Invisible Hand: The Wealth of Adam Smith, The Minerva Group, Inc., 2002, ISBN 1-
4102-0288-7, p. 123.
20. John Eatwell, The Invisible Hand, W.W. Norton&Company, 1989, pp. Preface x1.
21. "The mathematical century: the 30 greatest problems of the last 100 years (2006) Piergiorgio Odifreddi,
Arturo Sangalli, Freeman J Dyson, p. 122" (
e%20hand&f=false). Retrieved 2013-07-30.
22. Rogers, Wyatt M. (2000). "1: Economic Forces in Modern Capitalism". Third Millennium Capitalism:
Convergence of Economic, Energy, and Environmental Forces (
9D3OJ0EC). ABC-Clio ebook. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 38.
ISBN 9781567203608. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
23. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, "The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship,
and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than
might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency, though in a less degree. They are a sort of
enlarged monopolies, and may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep
up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the
labour and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate." p. 52,
24. Gaffney, Mason. "The Taxable Surplus of Land: Measuring, Guarding and Gathering It" (http://schalkenb
d-gathering-it/). Retrieved 9 December 2014.
25. Christian Gerlach, Wu-Wei in Europe. A Study of Eurasian Economic Thought (http://hsozkult.geschicht, London School of Economics March 2005 p.
3" the diffusion of wu-wei, co-evolved with the inner-European laissez-faire principle, the Libaniusian
model." p. 8 "Thus, wu-wei has to be recognized as a laissez-faire instrument of Chinese political
economy "p. 10 "Practising wu-wei erzhi. Consequently, it is this variant of the laissez-faire maxim in
which the basis of Physiocracy's moral philosophy is to be located. Priddat's work made clear that the
wu-wei of the complete conomie has to be considered central to Physiocracy; "p. 11 "that wu-wei
translates into French as laissez-faire"
26. Will & Ariel Durant, Rousseau and the Revolution, pp. 7177, Simon and Schuster, 1967,
ISBN 067163058X.
27. Will & Ariel Durant, Rousseau and the Revolution, p. 76, Simon and Schuster, 1967, ISBN 067163058X.
28. Scott Gordon (1955). "The London Economist and the High Tide of Laissez Faire". Journal of Political
Economy. 63 (6): 46188. doi:10.1086/257722 (
29. Cormac Grda (1995). "section: Ideology and relief in Chpt. 2". The Great Irish Famine. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 9780521557870.
30. George Miller. On Fairness and Efficiency. The Policy Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1-86134-221-8 p. 344
31. Christine Kinealy. A Death-Dealing Famine:The Great Hunger in Ireland. Pluto Press, 1997. ISBN 978-
0-7453-1074-9. p. 59
32. Antonia Taddei (1999). "London Clubs in the Late Nineteenth Century" (
mics/history/paper28/28taddeiweb1.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 2008-12-30.
33. Jones, G. Gareth (1977). "The British Government and the Oil Companies 19121924: The Search for an
Oil Policy". The Historical Journal. 20 (3): 64772. JSTOR 2638433 (
33). doi:10.1017/s0018246x00011286 (
34. Bourgin, Frank (1989). The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic. New
York, NY: George Braziller Inc. ISBN 0-06-097296-3.
35. Bourgin, Frank (1989-06-01). "THE GREAT CHALLENGE: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early
Republic by Frank Bourgin | Kirkus" (
eat-challenge-the-myth-of-laissez-faire-i/). Retrieved 2013-07-30.
36. Kathleen G. Donohue (2005). Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer
( Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 2.
37. Prince, Carl E.; Taylor, Seth (1982). "Daniel Webster, the Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's
Role in the Industrializing Process, 18151830". Journal of the Early Republic. 2 (3): 28399.
JSTOR 3122975 ( doi:10.2307/3122975 (
38. Guelzo, Allen C. (1999). Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (
d=99466893). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. ISBN 0-8028-3872-3.
39. Robert W. Crandall (1987). "The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection for Autos and Steel". Brookings Papers
on Economic Activity. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1987, No. 1. 1987 (1): 27188.
JSTOR 2534518 ( doi:10.2307/2534518 (
40. Pietro S. Nivola (1986). "The New Protectionism: U.S. Trade Policy in Historical Perspective". Political
Science Quarterly. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 101, No. 4. 101 (4): 577600. JSTOR 2150795 (http
s:// doi:10.2307/2150795 (
41. Rand, Ayn Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ch. 7, New American Library, Signet, 1967.
42. Armstrong, J. Scott; Green, Kesten C. (2013-10-01). "Effects of corporate social responsibility and
irresponsibility policies" (
Journal of Business Research. Strategic Thinking in Marketing. 66 (10): 19221927.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.014 (
43. Nolan, Peter. Capitalism and Freedom: The Contradictory Character of Globalisation ( Anthem Press. ISBN 9781843312826. Retrieved
9 February 2017.
44. Orchard, Lionel; Stretton, Hugh. Public Goods, Public Enterprise, Public Choice: Theoretical
Foundations of the Contemporary Attack on Government (
AAQBAJ&pg=PA230). Springer. ISBN 9781349235056. Retrieved 9 February 2017.
45. Kuttner, Robert. "Globalization and Its Critics". The American Prospect.
46. Kerckhove, Gilbert Van. Toxic Capitalism: The Orgy of Consumerism and Waste: Are We the Last
Generation on Earth? ( AuthorHouse.
ISBN 9781477219065. Retrieved 9 February 2017.
47. "Mntefering's criticism of raw capitalism strikes a chord" (
d9-87aa-00000e2511c8.html). Financial Times. Retrieved 9 February 2017.
48. Paris, Jeffrey (1 July 2005). "Rethinking the End of Modernity" (
rchase?openform&fp=socphiltoday&id=socphiltoday_2005_0021_0000_0173_0192). Social Philosophy
Today. Philosophy Documentation Center. 21: 173189. doi:10.5840/socphiltoday20052120 (https://doi.o
rg/10.5840%2Fsocphiltoday20052120). Retrieved 26 July 2017.
49. Kilgore, Christopher D. (2017). "Bad Networks: From Virus to Cancer in Post-Cyberpunk Narrative" (htt
ps:// Journal of Modern Literature. 40 (2): 165183.
doi:10.2979/jmodelite.40.2.10 ( Retrieved 26 July 2017.
50. Spencer J. Pack. Capitalism as a Moral System: Adam Smith's Critique of the Free Market Economy.
Great Britain: Edward Elgar, 2010. Print
51. Dostaler, Gilles, Keynes and His Battles (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007), p. 91.
52. Dostaler 2007, p. 91; Barnett, Vincent, John Maynard Keynes (Routledge, 2013), p. 143.
53. White, Lawrence H. (1999). "Why Didn't Hayek Favor Laissez Faire in Banking?" (http://cameronecono (PDF). History of Political Economy. 31 (4): 75369.
doi:10.1215/00182702-31-4-753 ( Retrieved 11 April
Brebner, John Bartlet (1948). "Laissez Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth-Century Britain".
Journal of Economic History. 8: 5973.
Fisher, Irving (January 1907). "Why has the Doctrine of Laissez Faire been Abandoned?". Science. 25
(627): 1827. PMID 17739703. doi:10.1126/science.25.627.18.
Taussig, Frank W. (1904). "The Present Position of the Doctrine of Free Trade". Publications of the
American Economic Association. 6 (1): 2965.

Further reading
Block, Fred; Somers, Margaret R. (2014). The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polyani's
Critique. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05071-6.
Bourgin, Frank The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic (George Braziller
Inc., 1989; Harper & Row, 1990)

"Wu-Wei in Europe. A Study of Eurasian Economic Thought" (PDF). (773 KB) by Christian Gerlach,
London School of Economics March 2005
John Maynard Keynes, The end of laissez-faire (1926)
Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 18001890 (Greenwood
Press, 1960)
Goodrich, Carter. "American Development Policy: the Case of Internal Improvements," Journal of
Economic History, 16 (1956), 44960. in JSTOR
Goodrich, Carter. "National Planning of Internal Improvements," Political Science Quarterly, 63
(1948), 1644. in JSTOR
Johnson, E.A.J., The Foundations of American Economic Freedom: Government and Enterprise in the
Age of Washington (University of Minnesota Press, 1973)
Sidney Webb (1889), Fabian Essays in Socialism The Basis of Socialism The Period of Anarchy

Retrieved from ""

This page was last edited on 1 October 2017, at 21:39.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.