In this section - I am interested to know what do you think about Government interventions. Which school of thought propagate interventions and which don't ? Do read different sources and comment.
After some readings and search , my opinion is govt. should intervene, 2 school of thoughts relate, one's approach is Keynesian saying that govt should intervene, the other one's approach is Monetarist approach saying that should not intervene, i think govt should intervene because now a days mixed economy system is introduced which creates balance b/w public and private partnership, it can also reduce the monopolist culture in the market, through intervention public goods is easily available. govt can apply policies to reduce/increase production, it creates sociality and equality in the market.it can also control all that activities through intervention which are against the public interest. So govt. should intervene as a regulatory body.
As I think, I seriously believe in autocratic system until and unless our public is well educated and is ready to make decisions on its own. We are a society of 180 million emotional people we do not vote for any agenda and as a result Mr. Z is our president. I think bureaucracy is a group of at least bit educated people and can make a good decision on behalf of public so there should be strong government intervention. But bureaucracy is directly responsible to the leadership that creates it so there comes the biased ness. Another thing is that if we take and example of current economic situation around the world, countries with laissez-faire concept are in trouble and countries where level of government interference is much higher are much more stable e.g. China and Singapore In Pakistan political system is highly biased none of the political figure or party carry any agenda or motto, all they care for is power, wealth and personal interest that is one of the reason most of the policies fail. There is greed of power and wealth and our government is filled by highly corrupt officers and leaders. So government interference does not make any positive difference in maximizing social welfare. So the only option left for the country like Pakistan is Administrative rule
Mohsin, we are talking in realm where we have to suggest something and give pros and cons of any existing system. Which autocratic system you are talking about and why ? The main point of our discussion as Safina mentioned is market intervention. We have cases of market failure and some -- out of the market cases, which we have already discussed in class. Please discuss different school of thoughts. Policy Analysis course demands objective discussion, and class please avoid journalistic discussion.
I totally agree with safina about two schools of thought but from long time I have noticed that all the developed countries were following the new and latest accord which is called Washington Consensus "Stabilize, privatize, and liberalize"!! the term has been associated to Neoliberal policies. Major focus of Washington consensus was on trade liberalization, Fiscal policies, Subsidies, Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment, privatization of state property and tax reforms. Basic principal was to reduce government intervention and to increase competition globally and to de regularize monopolies. And the basic theme was to promote globalization. But I think it has failed miserably as we can see it from the economic crunch all over the world and has resulted into a market failure. Developed nations are suffering more then third world countries. E.g as we can from the last episode that USA had to give a huge bail out plan to all its major company’s. Government was forced to intervene otherwise there was no way out. So I think capitalism failed miserably. i think government should have strong regulatory bodies to regulate.
according to current economic situation i think government intervention is necessary because capatlism is totly failed as result of which their have been global economic crisis. as there is democratic mode of govt is prevailing round the world and people are participating in govt activities so i think market can be settled back to balance by goverment intervention because of socialistic reforms .same is the case in pakistan because pakistan is also stepping towards the democratic reforms which will improve our market situation by appling laws public private partnershipin the market activities.this will produce equality in the society and everyone will find equal opportunties for himself to prove himself in the market means destruction of monoplies in market.
Govt should intervene in market failure,because it gives an oppertunity to the govt to reframe its economic policies,which caused such situation.Unrealistic and non precticle govt policies and their poor implementation may lead to such failures and govt should yield it as an oppertunity for self correction.As for intervention point is concerned, it would be appreciable if govt comes in before things go worsed,
Govt should intervene in some cases as above mentioned such as market failure.during great depression period in Germeny when the people were unable to buy products and industries were closed due to which unemployement occured.Then the Govt took action and provided loans free of interest.then every individual brought products and as a result industries reopeded and provided jobs. Hence we can say in some cases GOVT has to intervene where there is necessary.but when the market is functioning well then Govt has to not intervene instead let them free.
javaid(jagu)!I partialy agree with you and beleive that govt should not wait till such situation as that of great depression,and should intervene much earliar.Govt should establish monitoring system for capturing the situation and be able to handle it beforehand.
Yes Satar sir;you are right but it doesn't mean that Govt has to not take consideration of everythings. govt has to take knoeledge of everything.as i mentioned above that when there is need of Govt intervene then Govt should intervene. A proper Govt should have knoeledge of everything whether it is private or governmental.And when there is a fall then Govt has to intervene.
we should not forget black sheep of our economy,i mean influentials ,bussiness comunity(NOT ALL)and pressure groups ,who some times for their own intrest creat such an environment,where our economy slows down.They are so effective that some times it feels to the public that govt is helpless and can not dictate its policies!In such environment can govt intervene.I opine that at least govt should give a try and hold the strings.
I had an oppertunity to come across high ranking govt officials ,who deal with the market and related govt policies but lack specialisation.They pretend to be master of all,but none.IF govt comprises of such masters,then what will be the outcome of govt intervention?I suppose govt even then should intervene ,to maintain its controll over free lancers.When the going gets tough,only tough get going.
government should intervine when the crisis lead to bank failure /financial crisis.. i wnat to explain the government intervention in trade cycles , trade cycles passes through all phases of prosperity and adversity. government have different role in trade cycles , trade cycles are 1,depression 2 recovery 3 boom 4 recession ,, in depression cycle real output and employmant reach to negative deviation priduction is low there is generall unemployment purchasing power is very low in that cycle government should intervine
governmnt interevention prevent from crisis such as inflaction, unmeploymant which occur in depression. government intervention in monopolistic competition to reduce the monopoly and to provide relief to commo0n men,
.. to safe domestic industry government should impose traff, which will effect imports relatively more expensive than domestic government use protectionist policy the government interventions in democratic society would bring fairness and equality in the economy while promoting competition to produce products in the cheapest way possible.. government will provide subsidies ,and voluntry agreements The government involvement in the economy in areas such as health, education, and welfare, provides incentives
The mantra of "Stablize, Liberalize and Privatize" came into existence with the Latin American countries reform process and then they moved toward institutional development. Discussing Financial Crisis seems quite oblivious. However, discussion is going good! What if I say that Intervention is bad thing ? How you guys can support my this assumption ?
Sir as per your statement that "GOVT. INTERVENTION IS BAD THING", Chicago school of thoughts follow this approach strictly, it is totally based on positive economics, hence their point is, govt. intervention is good in short run, instead of long run, govt. intervention is not good for long term strategy in terms of money market, so they believe that, govt. should behave or follow in according to the positive economics, instead of normative economics.
Govt should intervene in market for making and implementing sound policies as supported by Keynesian school of thought. It will fetch following results. 1 .Govt will be in a position to make and implement public friendly Polices. 2. Quality check will be easy. 3. Govt will ensure price control 4. Monopolist culture will diminish 5. Mixed eco of public and private sector will flourish .
Sir, I will only support your assumption i.e. (govt intervention is bad thing) in the
following cases. 1. If the country is eco too strong. 2. When the market is already doing well and is achieving its target. 3. Where eco is not effected by political instability 4. . 5. When the public and private market sector is in good and competent hands 6. Where govt. intervention hampers the progress of business and market community
Answering to ; government intervention a bad thing; as we discussed in our class session about intervention both school of thought are right about their perception. But if people are given opportunities on their individual basis I think economy will promote more progressively because people will have more choices to participate in economic activities without any outside pressure. Sattar bhai I think ur comments seems to me all about intervention is necessary as u said about political stability, market protection, security, insurance of business from govt . it is about intervention how u see it ? .
"GOVT. INTERVENTION IS GOOD OR BAD?" Govt. intervention is very good, if recall 1930's GREAT DEPRESSION the govt. played very important role for development of the economy, govt. should intervene is the classical school of thought but now the era is going to change, now mixed economy system is introduced, in this regard govt. intervention have excess advantages instead of disadvantages,so govt. should intervene in both cases, weather market is going to be run very well or vice versa.
Sajjad ,let me clarify myself once again, that I am in favor of government intervention, basing upon my initial arguments. But what if some one says, it is bad. So I have mentions few circumstances ,where a probability of not interfering seems logical. How good it is if govt continues its interference as Safina has pointed out .With this market will remain under check and eco will boom. The ideal situation could be balanced or on required basis interference.
Sajjad ,let me clarify myself once again, that I am in favor of government intervention, basing upon my initial arguments. But what if some one says, it is bad. So I have mentions few circumstances ,where a probability of not interfering seems logical. How good it is if govt continues its interference as Safina has pointed out .With this market will remain under check and eco will boom. The ideal situation could be balanced or on required basis interference.
intervention regarding public policy ?
ReplyDeleteOff-course ,I think it means intervention of the govt. in markets regarding public policy.
ReplyDeleteAfter some readings and search , my opinion is govt. should intervene, 2 school of thoughts relate, one's approach is Keynesian saying that govt should intervene, the other one's approach is Monetarist approach saying that should not intervene, i think govt should intervene because now a days mixed economy system is introduced which creates balance b/w public and private partnership, it can also reduce the monopolist culture in the market, through intervention public goods is easily available. govt can apply policies to reduce/increase production, it creates sociality and equality in the market.it can also control all that activities through intervention which are against the public interest. So govt. should intervene as a regulatory body.
ReplyDeleteAs I think, I seriously believe in autocratic system until and unless our public is well educated and is ready to make decisions on its own. We are a society of 180 million emotional people we do not vote for any agenda and as a result Mr. Z is our president.
ReplyDeleteI think bureaucracy is a group of at least bit educated people and can make a good decision on behalf of public so there should be strong government intervention. But bureaucracy is directly responsible to the leadership that creates it so there comes the biased ness. Another thing is that if we take and example of current economic situation around the world, countries with laissez-faire concept are in trouble and countries where level of government interference is much higher are much more stable e.g. China and Singapore
In Pakistan political system is highly biased none of the political figure or party carry any agenda or motto, all they care for is power, wealth and personal interest that is one of the reason most of the policies fail. There is greed of power and wealth and our government is filled by highly corrupt officers and leaders. So government interference does not make any positive difference in maximizing social welfare. So the only option left for the country like Pakistan is Administrative rule
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMohsin, we are talking in realm where we have to suggest something and give pros and cons of any existing system. Which autocratic system you are talking about and why ?
ReplyDeleteThe main point of our discussion as Safina mentioned is market intervention. We have cases of market failure and some -- out of the market cases, which we have already discussed in class. Please discuss different school of thoughts. Policy Analysis course demands objective discussion, and class please avoid journalistic discussion.
sorry for the journalistic view ... as i was talkin about pure autoratic view ... a dictatorship
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with safina about two schools of thought but from long time I have noticed that all the developed countries were following the new and latest accord which is called Washington Consensus "Stabilize, privatize, and liberalize"!! the term has been associated to Neoliberal policies. Major focus of Washington consensus was on trade liberalization, Fiscal policies, Subsidies, Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment, privatization of state property and tax reforms. Basic principal was to reduce government intervention and to increase competition globally and to de regularize monopolies. And the basic theme was to promote globalization. But I think it has failed miserably as we can see it from the economic crunch all over the world and has resulted into a market failure. Developed nations are suffering more then third world countries.
ReplyDeleteE.g as we can from the last episode that USA had to give a huge bail out plan to all its major company’s. Government was forced to intervene otherwise there was no way out. So I think capitalism failed miserably.
i think government should have strong regulatory bodies to regulate.
Mohsin don't apologatic! Its all right you are learning. You made good comments afterward.
ReplyDeleteaccording to current economic situation i think government intervention is necessary because capatlism is totly failed as result of which their have been global economic crisis. as there is democratic mode of govt is prevailing round the world and people are participating in govt activities so i think market can be settled back to balance by goverment intervention because of socialistic reforms .same is the case in pakistan because pakistan is also stepping towards the democratic reforms which will improve our market situation by appling laws public private partnershipin the market activities.this will produce equality in the society and everyone will find equal opportunties for himself to prove himself in the market means destruction of monoplies in market.
ReplyDeleteGovt should intervene in market failure,because it gives an oppertunity to the govt to reframe its economic policies,which caused such situation.Unrealistic and non precticle govt policies and their poor implementation may lead to such failures and govt should yield it as an oppertunity for self correction.As for intervention point is concerned, it would be appreciable if govt comes in before things go worsed,
ReplyDeleteGovt should intervene in some cases as above mentioned such as market failure.during great depression period in Germeny when the people were unable to buy products and industries were closed due to which unemployement occured.Then the Govt took action and provided loans free of interest.then every individual brought products and as a result industries reopeded and provided jobs.
ReplyDeleteHence we can say in some cases GOVT has to intervene where there is necessary.but when the market is functioning well then Govt has to not intervene instead let them free.
javaid(jagu)!I partialy agree with you and beleive that govt should not wait till such situation as that of great depression,and should intervene much earliar.Govt should establish monitoring system for capturing the situation and be able to handle it beforehand.
ReplyDeleteYes Satar sir;you are right but it doesn't mean that Govt has to not take consideration of everythings. govt has to take knoeledge of everything.as i mentioned above that when there is need of Govt intervene then Govt should intervene.
ReplyDeleteA proper Govt should have knoeledge of everything whether it is private or governmental.And when there is a fall then Govt has to intervene.
we should not forget black sheep of our economy,i mean influentials ,bussiness comunity(NOT ALL)and pressure groups ,who some times for their own intrest creat such an environment,where our economy slows down.They are so effective that some times it feels to the public that govt is helpless and can not dictate its policies!In such environment can govt intervene.I opine that at least govt should give a try and hold the strings.
ReplyDeleteI had an oppertunity to come across high ranking govt officials ,who deal with the market and related govt policies but lack specialisation.They pretend to be master of all,but none.IF govt comprises of such masters,then what will be the outcome of govt intervention?I suppose govt even then should intervene ,to maintain its controll over free lancers.When the going gets tough,only tough get going.
ReplyDeletegovernment should intervine when the crisis lead to bank failure /financial crisis.. i wnat to explain the government intervention in trade cycles , trade cycles passes through all phases of prosperity and adversity. government have different role in trade cycles , trade cycles are 1,depression 2 recovery 3 boom 4 recession ,, in depression cycle real output and employmant reach to negative deviation priduction is low there is generall unemployment purchasing power is very low in that cycle government should intervine
ReplyDeletegovernmnt interevention prevent from crisis such as inflaction, unmeploymant which occur in depression. government intervention in monopolistic competition to reduce the monopoly and to provide relief to commo0n men,
ReplyDelete.. to safe domestic industry government should impose traff, which will effect imports relatively more expensive than domestic government use protectionist policy the government interventions in democratic society would bring fairness and equality in the economy while promoting competition to produce products in the cheapest way possible.. government will provide subsidies ,and voluntry agreements The government involvement in the economy in areas such as health, education, and welfare, provides incentives
ReplyDeleteThe mantra of "Stablize, Liberalize and Privatize" came into existence with the Latin American countries reform process and then they moved toward institutional development. Discussing Financial Crisis seems quite oblivious. However, discussion is going good! What if I say that Intervention is bad thing ? How you guys can support my this assumption ?
ReplyDeleteSir as per your statement that "GOVT. INTERVENTION IS BAD THING", Chicago school of thoughts follow this approach strictly, it is totally based on positive economics, hence their point is, govt. intervention is good in short run, instead of long run, govt. intervention is not good for long term strategy in terms of money market, so they believe that, govt. should behave or follow in according to the positive economics, instead of normative economics.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with this notion or not ? Class I am looking forward you comments in this regards!
ReplyDeleteGovt should intervene in market for making and implementing sound policies as supported by Keynesian school of thought. It will fetch following results.
ReplyDelete1 .Govt will be in a position to make and implement public friendly
Polices.
2. Quality check will be easy.
3. Govt will ensure price control
4. Monopolist culture will diminish
5. Mixed eco of public and private sector will flourish .
Sir, I will only support your assumption i.e. (govt intervention is bad thing) in the
ReplyDeletefollowing cases.
1. If the country is eco too strong.
2. When the market is already doing well and is achieving its target.
3. Where eco is not effected by political instability
4. .
5. When the public and private market sector is in good and competent hands
6. Where govt. intervention hampers the progress of business and market community
Sattar ..! where is your 4th point, i think it is missing , kindly explain your point.
ReplyDeleteSafina and shauqat. Sorry it is human error and not computer error
ReplyDeleteAnswering to ; government intervention a bad thing; as we discussed in our class session about intervention both school of thought are right about their perception. But if people are given opportunities on their individual basis I think economy will promote more progressively because people will have more choices to participate in economic activities without any outside pressure. Sattar bhai I think ur comments seems to me all about intervention is necessary as u said about political stability, market protection, security, insurance of business from govt . it is about intervention how u see it ? .
ReplyDelete"GOVT. INTERVENTION IS GOOD OR BAD?"
ReplyDeleteGovt. intervention is very good, if recall 1930's GREAT DEPRESSION the govt. played very important role for development of the economy, govt. should intervene is the classical school of thought but now the era is going to change, now mixed economy system is introduced, in this regard govt. intervention have excess advantages instead of disadvantages,so govt. should intervene in both cases, weather market is going to be run very well or vice versa.
Sajjad ,let me clarify myself once again, that I am in favor of government intervention, basing upon my initial arguments. But what if some one says, it is bad. So I have mentions few circumstances ,where a probability of not interfering seems logical. How good it is if govt continues its interference as Safina has pointed out .With this market will remain under check and eco will boom. The ideal situation could be balanced or on required basis interference.
ReplyDeleteSajjad ,let me clarify myself once again, that I am in favor of government intervention, basing upon my initial arguments. But what if some one says, it is bad. So I have mentions few circumstances ,where a probability of not interfering seems logical. How good it is if govt continues its interference as Safina has pointed out .With this market will remain under check and eco will boom. The ideal situation could be balanced or on required basis interference.
ReplyDelete