[QUOTE="fidosim"]Not necessarily. Laissez-Faire economics is too often confused with simple anarchy. Laissez-Faire suggests that governments allow the economy to work as autonomously as possible. It does not suggest that the government cannot uphold basic laws and civil rights. Hewkii

Probably the most overrated movie this year.C-Lee

[QUOTE="unholymight"]Total laissez-faire capitalism is much worse. This implies no government intervention or regulation or laws, and thus all power rests with money.fidosim

District 9 can't even hold a candle to Avatar.

Also, these claims of supposed clichéness are becoming quite cliché.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I see an "if..."

coolbeans90

You are making rather bold assumptions that there is a person with the "biggest stick" as opposed to competitors constantly trying to beat out their opponents. Honestly, minimum wage increases unemployment in the same wage category that is trying to help. The intentions are good, but the results are less than optimal. I wouldn't say it is silly to suggest that either system is better than the other for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, there are fairly competent arguments from both side that suggest that their preferred system would increase overall prosperity. Secondly, there is a large void of information regarding what a truly communistic, or Laissez-faire economy would look like. I would call it rather close minded to assume that either idea is silly. I am rather partial to the capitalism side of the argument, and have my doubts about how much everyone would prosper in a communistic system. But I can't make either claim with absolute certainty.

Competitors can't compete if they're already knocked down. Try opening a have-all store that competes against Wal-Mart in a world where Wal-Mart is making sure you lose money all the way until you give up or you're bankrupt.

It wasn't cliché.

Pocahontas did it better.

JonnyEarthquake