A Quote by Benjamin Graham

Whether we like it or not, government intervention in the face of surplus is here to stay. — © Benjamin Graham
Whether we like it or not, government intervention in the face of surplus is here to stay.
Let's face a historical truth: we have never had a "free market", we have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry. They had no quarrel with "big government" when it served their needs.
If, for example, existing government intervention is minor, we shall attach a smaller weight to the negative effect of additional government intervention. This is an important reason why many earlier liberals, like Henry Simons, writing at a time when government was small by today's standards, were willing to have government undertake activities that today's liberals would not accept now that government has become so overgrown.
The idea that the largest banks in the world would simultaneously fail, need government support, government guarantees, and/or government intervention to survive was not in my range of realistic scenarios.
Every intervention of man in the environment around him incurs some risk as to both favorable and unfavorable consequences. Every intervention is taken in the face of partial ignorance as to what its effects will be and involves uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome.
Our government has been in a surplus position up until this year. We should be able to recover to a surplus position shortly, as quickly as the economy recovers. So, we're able to do the kind of stimulus that you see in the United States without deteriorating our debt position in the long-term.
Every government intervention [in the marketplace] creates unintended consequences, which lead to calls for further government interventions.
In our election manifesto is: we keep the right to create money and to bring in circulation, for the cause of the government ... Those who do not share this view, reply us to the issue of paper money is for the banks, the government should stay out of the banking business. I agree with Jefferson's opinion ... and just like him I say again: the issue of money is a matter for the government and the banks should stay out of government activity.
The whole purpose of maintaining your power in government is to make sure that you stay in government. You stay in government by finding out who is liable to be against you. To do that, you try and put your finger into every single pie that is available to you.
Nothing rectifies out-of-control market failures like a healthy dose of government intervention and mountains of bureaucracy.
Things like Kitchen Cabinet, I'm not sure they necessarily tell the Australian people whether you have judgement, whether you have discernment, whether you have intellectual acuity, whether you are able to develop policy, whether you are able to represent individual cases to the highest levels of government successfully and in a manner that actually achieves outcomes.
When government takes away options, it is bound to make some people worse off, even with intrinsicallly good intentions behind that government intervention.
It has become fashionable to rail against government intervention in the economy, and the FHA is a favorite example by those trying to show the government's overreach. In reality, the FHA shows how government action during the Great Recession forestalled a much worse economic fate.
I'm not crying over surplus capacity... Surplus capacity is good for India. Surplus capacity means we can get more investors, can get more households and promise them 24/7 power.
Since, however, the reduced surplus value is to be distributed among them in like manner, the modification of their respective parts in the production of surplus value must find expression in a modification of the prices.
Surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value are... the invisible essence to be investigated, whereas the rate of profit and hence the form of surplus-value as profit are visible surface phenomena
We are too solicitous for government intervention, on the theory, first, that the people themselves are helpless, and second, that the Government has superior capacity for action. Often times both of these conclusions are wrong.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!