His comment was comparing lack of enforcement to lack of regulations, and he was correct that the end result is the same. That is the sense in which I meant "laissez faire". It's the faith that Men are naturally good and left alone they will naturally do good.
Well, so be it, we're gonna have to disagree about our respective definitions... I find that mine has a lot more practical value.
i dont know who "him" is in your comment, but you've essentially clarified my point. there was no "faith that men are good and left alone....etc". if there had been no regulation, and the government was removed from everything regarding wall street, derivatives, CDOs, big banks, the housing market, interest rate hilarity, fannie and freddie, etc (i could go on and on) then you would have a point. but government wasn't removed, nor did it have a "let's leave business alone to govern itself" attitude. it was neck deep in all of the shit, and piling more shit on by the day! the whole housing collapse occurred because the regulatory bodies completely ignored everything happening. we had the federal reserve chairman going on and telling everyone how an ARM was the best thing since sliced bread, while keeping rates horribly low for an extended period of time to encourage speculation! the SEC out there surfing transvestite porn while Bernie M went around robbing old people of their life's savings! the current president and the prior one making sweetheart deals to big banks to protect them from the horrid decisions that should have come home to roost. oh, and what about the auto makers? Government motors was bailed out for it's horrendously bad economic model. the government didn't stay out of anything! it was involved all throughout the cancerous process and perpetuated it! that is NOT "laissez faire". not on any planet.
I'll concede the possibility that had government not been involved that things would have turned out differently, perhaps even not so bad. But the crisis would have occurred anyway because Men were doing what comes natural and there was a lack of regulation and enforcement.
Well, there again you're engaging in wordplay. It doesn't matter what you call it, relevance, practical value, usability, whatever. What matters, again is the end result. As to your point about the government involvement, this is neither the time nor the place to argue about that, I think.
Well, I just mean to say that that's an argument that doesn't have anything to do with Krugman and the original subject of this thread (I have nothing to say on the whole "right/left" topic). Maybe we should start another one and discuss it there.
i think it absolutely has to do with krugman. he's advocating more government spending and stimulus. he's a big pusher for more money thrown into the system, and more of the same. and he's wrong.