The Myth of Laissez-Faire
Even as government intervention and regulation are looming large in the United States, one is still pulled up short on encountering Jeff Madrick’s new book, The Case for Big Government (Princeton University Press).
And when he says big, Madrick (MBA ’71), editor of Challenge magazine and a senior fellow at the New School’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, means big. He wants an American federal government that raises taxes on almost everyone and everything to fund up to $500 billion annually in projects and programs that better the life of the average American. What will higher taxes bring us? Improved schools, universal health care, energy and environmental solutions, better jobs and rising incomes, and the flexibility to deal with abrupt changes in the world. In short, the standard of living will once again increase in the United States, arresting a decline that Madrick argues has set in rather silently since the 1970s.
With Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave, Madrick, a wonderfully passionate contrarian, argues that we’ve been brainwashed to believe that more government and higher taxes translate to lower productivity and fewer incentives to invest. This is the “myth of laissez-faire” that has been promoted by wrong-headed economists (Milton Friedman), opportunistic politicians (including Bill Clinton), and poor readings of history (even antigovernment presidents, including Jefferson, used government power effectively).
Big government works, Madrick asserts. “The economies of nations with high taxes and big governments have grown rapidly, are highly productive, and provide their citizens with a standard of living every bit the equivalent of America’s and some argue superior to it.” He points to Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Norway as exemplars and promotes the research of economist Peter Lindert of the University of California, Davis.
Madrick advocates big government not because it’s big but because it’s powerful enough to manage change in an increasingly complex world.
Where and who does the dough come from? Madrick doesn’t offer a concrete plan but suggests sources that will give most Republicans the night sweats: higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, smaller increases (but increases still) on lower tax brackets, limitations on income-tax deductions, an increase in the capital-gains tax, and more take from sin taxes.
Is this short volume convincing? I, for one, need more persuading on what daily life under this expanded governmental presence would look like. But Madrick does make a spirited argument against Thomas Paine’s view that government at best is a necessary evil. Rather, it can be (and has been in the past) a catalyst for protecting and expanding the rights, opportunities, and quality of life of all citizens. We’ve just seen what too little government regulation can lead to; maybe we need to give bigger government a bigger chance to succeed.
— Sean Silverthorne
