Should the federal government subsidize private bussinesess or be involved in the free market? Why or Why not?

[nk_2020]

in other words "Should government help businesses or stay out of it? its a social studies question and IDK the answer!! plz just give simple answers!

[ShineonRickWright]

There is no "answer" it's an opinion. Capitalism with sensible oversight works best.

[conservative momma]

Okay, you should know that your question itself is an oxymoron. If the federal government is involved, then it is no longer a free market system. A free market system makes no promises of success; failures of weak businesses make room for new, stronger ones to take their places. Propping up these entities just assures future failure and puts a stamp of approval on mediocrity (or worse). All the money in the world won't make a bad product sell. The consumer loses on dual levels!

[The Federalist]

The Federal Government has been subsidizing private business for years...But only certain markets like Farming and Railroads....Railroads need to be protected to a certain extent...because they are a key part of America's infrastructure...and people have got to eat...but farms have been receiving a disproportionate amount of cash over the last 20 years as the principle of subsidized farming caught on...

I do not think that the Federal Government should subsidize any market...I think that it lends itself to the Government setting mandates and requirements over a business that ultimately undermine sound business doctrine....Most "Public Service" politicians have not had real life hard line private enterprise experience so they are ill equipped to manage private "supply and demand" economics...

But we are in a bit of a trade war...China and Japan have been subsidizing their steel markets for decades with the sole purpose of destroying the US steel market under the premise that once the US industry was bankrupt and gone...they could stop the subsidies and run straight business without government back up...Problem is we haven't shown up for that fight and let US Steel and other huge American Manafacturing industries go belly up because they were targeted for trade wars by China and Japan...

The US best policy is to remain out of US private enterprise but protect US intrest in trade...Allowing Chinese products that are subsidized specifically to destroy US supply chains need to be tariffed to allow US suppliers to survive...Otherwise if their is not global subsidizing of a material...The US shouldn't either...But the US should institute tariffs on products that are being subsidized in foreign countries so undercut US prices....That is just common sense...But Clinton destroyed it with NAFTA allowing any nation to flood us with products and no recourse for American manafacturers.

Subsizide? No...unless that commodity is being subsidized on Global markets by international competitors...and a Tariff blockade should be set up to protect US companies.

[Angela Q]

There is no "free market". The economy exists as a direct result of the laws and regulations that shape it. The "free market" is a theory with little or no basis in reality. Without laws, there would be no monetary system and no economy beyond barter.

Usually the term "free market" is a buzzword used to support changing the regulations to give advantage to a particular special interest group, while disadvantaging another group. ∠°)

[Princess M&M]

Mr. P's social studies class 2? I dont get it either.

[Jake H]

In my opinion its a yes they should stay in it because it will give more jobs to people. also it will it will cause more and more people to get out of debt.