The good, the bad and the ugly of laissez faire

If I had been asked more than 30 years ago, which I would prefer, a planned economy or a laissez-faire free market, I would have chosen the latter as the best pick-me-up for the country's abject economic condition at that time. But if asked the same question today, I would not hesitate to say that I would accept neither if they were presented in their extreme versions.

I do not necessarily agree with all that David Harvey says in his book, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, about the rise of neoliberal economics as "a state apparatus whose fundamental mission" is to "reflect the interests of private property owners, businesses, multinational corporations, and financial capital". However, the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the financial crisis on Wall Street with its ensuing global economic meltdown testify to the truth of much of what Harvey says about the nature of neoliberalism.

Harvey writes that the rise of neoliberal economics since the late 1970s has mainly benefited the wealthy. In the United States, the richest 1 percent now control 15 percent of the wealth as opposed to 8 percent at the end of World War II. Harvey also points out that the aggregate economic growth during the decades between World War II and the 1970s was greater than during the neoliberal era.