EMPIRE STATE COLLEGE

BOBBIE EARL JACKSON SR.

DECEMBER 14, 2004

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

WHEN IT HELPS

AND

WHEN IT HURTS

                                                Government, Business, International Perspectives

                                                Bobbie Earl Jackson Sr.

                                                Dr. Jeffrey Weiss – Mentor

        Throughout America’s economic and social history there have been scores of arguments advocating and opposing government intervention into the affairs of business. These positions have been promoted by a consortium of public and private institutions, ordinary citizens, as well as a business itself. Many of the arguments in support of constraints against business have resulted in favorable legislation to prevent and eliminate monopoly control of markets and industries. There have also been positive regulated policies that have addressed issues concerning freedom of speech, false and deceptive advertising, redistributive policies, and regulations to protect the natural environment from abusive business practices. However, government intervention has also produced a significant amount of legislation that has resulted in wasted tax dollars, hindered business growth and development or reduced incentives of newcomers to enter business. Constraints on business have also impeded the advancement of technology, competitive business positioning, and product innovation. The purpose of this paper is to provide compelling and substantiated positions for government intervention into business affairs, as well as powerful reasons as to why government should exercise restraint into business activities. These arguments will be supported by relevant examinations of U.S. business firms and empirical information.

        In the United States the complexity of regulatory concerns are intertwined between federal, state, and local governments. However, by virtue of the U.S. Constitution in Section 8 of Article I , Congress is given the explicit power to collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the federal government debts and provide for the general welfare of the nation. The federal government is also given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, provide defense and the authority to coin and distribute money (Todd, 1986-87, 4). This is the authority by which the federal government has exercised its vast influence over business and is known as the “commerce clause” (Steiner and Steiner, 2000, 292). Therefore, the focus of all regulations in this paper will be from a federal perspective and the appropriate national governing agencies.

        During the 19th century, expansive economic growth in the U.S. was propelled by the formidable stimulus of industrialization. This time period moved the nation from an entrepreneurial business economy dominated by individualistic farming, to one spearheaded by manufacturing productivity, investment mergers, and banking finance (Steiner and Steiner, 2000, 85). These business activities provided the synergy that brought extensive control and domination of industries and markets into the control of a few powerful business owners, and corporations (Todd, 1986-87, 7). John D. Rockefeller was one of these forceful elites. Rockefeller turned a $4,000.00 investment in a petroleum production refinery in 1863 into the Standard Oil Company, which by the 1880’s controlled over 90 percent of the oil market and enjoyed monopoly status (Steiner and Steiner, 2000, 69-71). Although, John D. had a keen aptitude for business and possessed many essential qualities for management of a successful enterprise, he believed it necessary to “rationalize” the complete industry in order to halt its inclination to destructive competition (Steiner and Steiner, 2000, 70). Rockefeller’s method for correcting the problem was to monopolize using unscrupulous strategies. Collusive behavior with the flourishing railroads in the form of rebates, secret pacts, bribery, and strong arm tactics with friends and foes became the preferred prescription for success (Steiner and Steiner, 2000, 71-72). Widespread anger and discontentment reverberated throughout all spheres of the nation, as social attitudes about individual rights and free competition clashed with the predatory monopoly power of Standard Oil. The Supreme Court ordered the breakup of the company in 1911 under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, declaring that its monopoly position was an “undue restraint” on trade that violated the “standard of reason” (Steiner and Steiner, 2000, 76).

Join now!

        A glimpse of the Standard Oil Company and John D. Rockefeller provide a profound example of why government intervention will always be a necessary and essential element of commerce. Despite the fact that Rockefeller’s purported reasoning for monopoly control was to eliminate wasteful inefficient competition and maximize product quality, it was a direct assault on the concepts of free markets and trade. In the realm of today’s complex marketplace and rapid technological changes, the ability to circumvent regulation is always going to be attractive to business. Many of the business practices of Rockefeller’s era are still inherent to the ideologies ...

This is a preview of the whole essay