A stronger economy usually leads to better quality of life.

A lack of government intervention would imply a "free" market The concept of a "free" market is essentially natural selection applied to the economy Because of this, an Apex predator (mega corporation monopoly) will always arise and dominate the "free" market Because of this, everyone now lives under the control of the apex predator - in an attempt to become "free", you have created legal tyranny. So the only way you could think that a lack of government intervention (free market) is good, is if you don't know anything about what you're talking about. And I swear you made this thread a week ago.

People forget that the government was responsible for basically every economic downturn since 1913.

Capitalism Requires Government

I think the government should let the economy be for the most part, but it should also favour small businesses. Monopolies and oligopolies should be ruthlessly restricted, while important national assets like banks and energy companies must also be regulated. Other than that, let it be.

Define "strong" and "weak".

Without government intervention businesses would have no reason to play morally or fairly. They would only have reason to make profit. At the expense of everyone else. They would exploit the ever loving crap out of regular citizens. I know some would say that citizens would be pissed and move onto a competitor and thus the system would self regulate. I don't buy that. I think that the corporations would all do the same thing leaving no choice in the matter and the citizens only choice is to go without their product. And in some cases, that is literally not an option.

How are people going to get their currency if the government isn't going to help at all? I would be eager to trade in an ear of corn and two chickens for two small piglets and some tobacco

If you cut out government intervention completely, you cut out hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spending; which is reducing economic growth (and thus living standards) by [i]definition. [/i]

How is this even a question? They caused the collapse, the massive debt, the incompetent spending, the waste and the massive hole we're left with for future generations. We absolutely would have a much better economy without their criminal schemes.

The only way the government intervenes is by taking from one group of people and giving to another. Those from whom the resources are taken are thus unable to use those resources. So the government takes $5 million in taxes from rich people and give it to poor people, that's $5 million that would have been spent by the rich people. Consequently, increased in government spending causes decreases in private spending. “Every market intervention must inevitably conflict with the framework that allows the coordination of private plan fulfillment. Every intervention replaces to a certain degree the spontaneous and multilayered interaction of all members of society on free markets with the targeted direction of resources by the state, which will inevitably benefit some at the expense of others…By definition, any intervention in the market must direct resources away from how private property owners would have employed them and toward hos state officials and their economic advisors would like to see them employed.” – Detlev S. Schlichter "The essential features of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom."- Ludwig Von Mises