Keeping Everyone Pleased

There is always argument over how much control the government should have over the economy but really it just depends on who you are.  If you are the head of a large private business, then you would want as little government control as possible.  However, if you are a person who is living paycheck to paycheck then you would want as much help from the government as you can get.  It is up to the government to try to keep everyone happy.  But it is simply impossible to please everyone.  They have to determine how much they should intervene not just with the economy, but with society as a whole.

The intentions of the government should be to stimulate the market and protect it's citizens, amongst other things.  They have the power to make a lot of people very happy, but they also have the power to make a lot of people very unhappy. In order for the government to be able to make changes that will help the well being of the people, they need to have the money to do so.  If the market is not doing well then the government is also hurting because taxes decrease when people aren't making as much money.  When the government doesn't have as much money, they need to make the decision to spend the money they do have on the people or the market.  The issue is if they spend their money on the people, then the market is still hurting and the government is only losing more money.  But if they decide to spend the money on the market, then they look bad because it seems like they are forgetting about the people in need.  The challenge is finding the perfect balance of spending that will make everyone happy. One example of a way that the government tries to kill two birds with one stone is when they increase spending on creating jobs.  When more people are employed, then there is simply more money in the pockets of the consumers.  These consumers then spend their money and stimulate the market.

Source: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/polisci/wtp7e/full/ch/16/chapterreview.aspx
This source is credible because it is out of a text book called An Introduction to American Politics

How often does the government make decisions that only really benefit one side?

     

A Brief History

Source:  http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=SUIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CCX2830600099

This article begins with talking about how the ideal level of government intervention in the economy is one the is right in the middle between a total capitalistic approach and the opposite end of the spectrum. It then describes the history of the government's control of the economy in the U.S. since the start of our country.  It talks about how the government originally did nothing to control the economy because they thought that would be the best way for it to grow.  However, due to the extremely poor working conditions of factory workers, the government decided they need to step in. Ever since, their mentality has been to do whatever it takes to make sure that the economy stays healthy and grows properly.  Basically, ever since then, the government has just been adding regulation with hopes of keeping a high level of jobs and a strong market. When programs such as Social Security were started under FDR, the goal was to directly put money into the pockets of consumers so they could then stimulate the economy with all of this new spending money.  Another important program that was started under FDR was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which insures people who put money in banks.  Clearly this intervention by the government was extremely helpful in a time when the economy was the worst it has ever been.  But one question that the author has is whether or not all of this regulation is still what is needed.  Clearly is has been proven that some regulation is necessary in order for an economy to succeed, but the question is really just finding the perfect amount.

http://mashedpotatobulletin.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/regulation-scales.gif

This source is from a data base so I assume that both the information and the article are both very credible.

Has the government already found that perfect amount of regulation? Or do we need to keep looking?

The Government's Help Isn't Really Helping

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1002718573/13A7C4B93D161289DEA/6?accountid=6222

This view this article takes on how much control the government should have over the economy is different than most of the articles I have read on this topic and I think it may have opened my eyes to a whole new view.  The main idea of this article is that the government makes all of these rules and spends all of this money, then when their plan doesn't work, they blame it all on the private sector.  They then make additional rules and spending to counteract the problems that in reality, they caused.  It is easy to blame the private because the general consensus among people is to trust the government so when they blame the private sector, everyone is willing to jump on board because that's what the government says is right. The bigger issue is more specific to our government and their bad decisions in the past.  For example, the government made it a priority to bail out the auto industry and financial firms, but they were spending money that they never had.  Unnecessary spending is one thing, but when it is money that you don't have, then it's a whole different problem.  The point is that the government doesn't always know what's best.  For this reason, the author of this article believes that the amount of power the government has should be greatly decreased and the future of the economy should be more left up to the private sector.  I'm not saying that I completely agree with this idea.  But I do agree with the fact that the majority of Americans are not educated enough on these issues to be responsible for their future.  The government should just have to answer to someone instead of them just being able to do whatever they feel is truly the better decision. 

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5087d226/turbine/va-essay-where-to-cut-defense-budget-20121024/400/16x9

I found this source on Proquest Platinum so I am assuming that both the information and the author are credible.  

Should the government have to clear their decisions with the private sector?

It Looks Like We Might Be at a Standstill

The main topic of this article is government debt and whether or not it is affecting the economy.  Some say that they massive debt that our country hurts the competition and business in the private sector because people are more cautious with their money due to the uncertainty of the future.  Others argue that if we were to cut the deficit spending that we are currently doing in order to decrease our debt, the economy would tank.  This is an issue in which it really depends which side you are looking at it from.  The people who want the spending to stop so we can eventually make it out of this massive debt we are in feel that not only their businesses, but the market in general would improve.  However, the people on the other side think that this spending is the only thing keeping the economy alive.

Another interesting point this article is that countries with high national debt have much lower job growth.  Meanwhile, countries such as Germany who has a low national debt also has high job growth.  Maybe President Obama would like to look into this statistic if he is really serious about creating more jobs.  However, even if Obama decided this was the ticket to creating more jobs, he would still have to work to lower the national debt, a lot, before he could potentially start to see some improvement in the job market. I believe the thing holding President Obama back is the risk that would come along with cutting the spending because if he cuts the spending and the economy does fall apart, then he has a broken economy and he still has national debt to pay off.  But if he continues to do what he is doing now, he is banking on he the hope that it will at least stay the same.

Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138474504/does-government-debt-really-weaken-the-economy

This article was written by Jim Zarroli who works for NPR so I would say that this information is credible.

Should Obama cut deficit spending in order to decrease the national debt in order to eventually create more jobs?

Synthesis and Plan

I have learned that the government does have quite a bit of control over the economy, in fact, they have a lot more than I thought.  They can control the economy in several different ways such as: Spending money, not spending money, or regulation.  One issue with this topic is that I am being pulled too much into the debate over how much control the government should have. Although I am interested in this debate, it is not my topic.  I have also learned about certain forms of government and their successes or failures with their economies.  For example, I talked a good amount about the Keynesian form of government in which the government spends massive amounts in order to assure high employment levels.

What are some others examples of regulation that the government has either put into effect, or at least tried?

How much does the government's role in the economy depend on what political party is in office?

How much of those decisions are made by the president?

The Government is just trying to protect us

Many people argue that the government has too much control over our economy, and they claim that they want more of a free market.  However, what they do not realize is that a lot of the regulation that the government imposes is there in order to protect us.  I agree that the market should be more free than regulated, but there are certain areas in which it is necessary for the government to intervene.

When the government regulates industries such as farming, they are trying to make the profession more safe for those who are involved.  For example, the government puts a regulation on the price of crops because farming is a risky job and it doesn't always produce.  However, these regulations make sure that the farmers make some sort of money because otherwise no one would want to be a farmer which would affect the whole country and possible certain parts of the world. Another situation in which I feel the government should be able to regulate is when people's well being is at risk.  An example would be the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because they make sure that there are no harmful food or drugs in the market.  The reason why the government's intervention is necessary is because the American people are simply too uninformed to know what is truly good and bad because companies will say anything to get people to buy their products.  Another example would be if the government were to put regulations on an industry in order to reduce their pollution.

http://economics.about.com/od/howtheuseconomyworks/a/regulation.htm

This source is from About.com from the U.S Department of State section so I want to say that it is pretty relevant.



http://blog.charitynavigator.org/2009_10_01_archive.html
To what extent should the government be able to control industries?

The Government Can Control the Economy

http://search.proquest.com/docview/507896696/139EBD69B4F5D04AF2B/2?accountid=6222

The government actually does have a lot of control over the economy but they need to be very careful with their intervention because things can go very wrong.  The article I will be referring to in this post gives some examples of times where governments have intervened with the economy and things have not turned out well.  The role of the government in the economy is very important not just for the government, but also for the businesses involved.  However, the argument is over the amount of influence the government should have. 

A completely free market or a laissez-faire economy means that the government has absolutely no control over the economy at all.  There has never been a completely laissez-faire economy simply because everyone knows that it would never work.  Basically, if companies were all allowed to control their competition and prices, the consumer wouldn't have a chance.  Companies would be able to take advantage of the now uninformed consumers so government regulation is clearly necessary.  So it's decided that at least some government regulation is necessary, but now the question is how much.  

This article talks a lot about Keynesian economics of which the basis is that the government needs to increase spending on public works such as building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. in order to decrease unemployment which would eventually increase the overall market activity.  The idea of this is to get people jobs with hopes that these people will add to the demand in the market and stimulate the economy.  It sounds easy enough, however, the tricky part is exactly how much to spend.  The article mentions some examples of some western economies that decided to put these Keynesian principles into action and ended up being horribly unsuccessful.  The mistake that these governments made was that they didn't give themselves any limits before hand on how much they were ultimately going to spend and they all ended up in economic depressions with an even larger gap between the rich and the poor.

I found this article on Proquest Platinum

Political Economy of Government Intervention in the Free Market System

Written by Stephen K. Aikins

The author is an assistant professor in the Department of Government and International Affairs at the University of Southern Florida so I would say he is pretty credible.  The author cites many different works in this article and the it was written in 2009 so it is still applicable.


Would a free market system actually work? 

How much control does the government have over the economy?

Question:  How much control does the government have over the economy?

1.) As of now, I don’t know much at all about this topic.  However, I have always been a little curious about the topic because my brother and my dad have conversations about it a lot and I always wish I could get involved.  

2.) The government (as in congress and the president) does not have total control over the economy at all, but they do have many ways to try to manipulate it.  The economy can only truly be controlled by the people.  The government has many ways of attempting to keep the economy healthy, but the truth is that none of these things are for sure.  For example, the government can impose tax cuts and control where the money goes, but they can never be sure that it will work.  Sometimes the government can temporarily solve problems with the economy.  But sometimes, these solutions just cause inflation which causes more problems in the long run.