Hillary Clinton Quotes

Just because there is a market failure, doesn’t mean there is a government solution.

We no longer have a free market in the United States, we have a government controlled free market.

I support social market economy. But it only works if there is fair competition.

I think that there is absolutely no free market in modern industrial states.

To talk about planning an economic system is to talk in old terms, and I find myself sometimes having to teach Westers about what the market really means.

There is no pure free-market economy.

The market is no god - it cannot solve every problem.

We need open, competitive, market economies... but at the same time with effective regulation and supervision.

However, leaving everything to the market is not necessarily good for society.

We want free markets, but the markets are not going to take care of themselves in all cases.

Thus, the weight of my criticism is directed against the inadequacy of the theoretical foundations of the laissez-faire doctrine upon which I was brought up and for many years I taught

I think things that contribute to the destruction of our free-incentive system are wrong. A trend against that free-incentive system is wrong, and should only be temporarily engaged in, in the event that war or something of that kind requires it. Otherwise, it should be reduced.

A properly functioning free market system does not spring spontaneously from society's soil as crabgrass springs from suburban lawns. Rather, it is a complex creation of laws and mores... Capitalism is a government program.

I support the state, but not the state-run economy. The state should intervene only to create the conditions necessary for the private sector to thrive.

Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.

Let’s begin with capitalism, a word that has gone largely out of fashion. The approved reference now is to the market system. This shift minimizes - indeed, deletes - the role of wealth in the economic and social system. And it sheds the adverse connotation going back to Marx. Instead of the owners of capital or their attendants in control, we have the admirably impersonal role of market forces. It would be hard to think of a change in terminology more in the interest of those to whom money accords power. They have now a functional anonymity.

No matter how deeply wedded one may be to the free enterprise system (and I, for one, am wedded for life), one has to accept the need for positive government; one has to consider government action on a sizable scale as desirable rather than as a necessary evil.

All the evils, abuses, and iniquities, popularly ascribed to businessmen and to capitalism, were not caused by an unregulated economy or by a free market, but by government intervention into the economy.

There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way.

I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful - but also very harmful to our society.

We are not smart enough to leave things to the market.

The broad liberal objective is a balanced and flexible "mixed economy," thus seeking to occupy that middle ground between capitalism and socialism whose viability has so long been denied by both capitalists and socialists.

While admirers of capitalism, we also to a certain extent believe it has limitations that require government intervention in markets to make them work.

It should not be the government running the economy.

The market doesn't work very well when it comes to public goods.