George F. Will Quotes

There are some who maintain that trade will regulate itself, and it is not to be benefited by the encouragements or restraints of government. Such persons will imagine that there is no need of a common directing power. This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes, which have grown into credit among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.

To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.

I'm from Berkeley, California, so I'm fully trained in socialism and all, but basically what they teach you there is markets are efficient and we can't beat them, so we might as well index.

There is no pure free-market economy.

The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.

Banks too big to fail are too big to be regulated or controlled by the Federal Government.

More and more it is evident that the State and if necessary the Nation, has got to possess the right of supervision and control as regards the great corporations.

There is not one grain of anything in the world that is sold in the free market. Not one. The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians.

If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.

When laissez-faire creates instability, the move to a freer market can be something less than pure gain.

There is no such thing as a free market.

If you bail out every investment bank that gets in trouble, that's not capitalism, that's socialism for the rich

The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism.

The policy of letting things alone, in the practical sense that the Government should never interfere with business or go into business itself, is called Laisser-faire by economists and politicians. It has broken down so completely in practice that it is now discredited; but it was all the fashion in politics a hundred years ago, and is still influentially advocated by men of business and their backers who naturally would like to be allowed to make money as they please without regard to the interest of the public.

I have read a great deal of economic theory for over 50 years now, but have found only one economic "law" to which I can find NO exceptions: Where the State prevents a free market, by banning any form of goods or services, consumer demand will create a black market for those goods or services, at vastly higher prices. Can YOU think of a single exception to this law?

The inefficiency of political control of an economy has been demonstrated more often, in more places, and under more varied conditions, than almost anything outside the realm of pure science.

The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.

If they are too big to fail, make them smaller.

One of the necessary accompaniments of capitalism in a democracy is political corruption.

The analysis in the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher was that government was interfering with the efficiency of the economy through protectionism, government subsidies, and government ownership. Once the government "got out of the way," private markets would allocate resources efficiently and generate robust growth. Development would simply come.

Contrary to the vision of the left, it was the free market which produced affordable housing - before government intervention made housing unaffordable.

Two hundred years ago the first liberal economist, Adam Smith, warned businessmen that they could absorb only a certain amount of rigidity. In the easy days after World War II... wage rises could be financed out of inflationary price increases.

I think almost every economist would agree that government gets itself in trouble when it tries to interfere with voluntary behavior.

When the private sector fails, the solution is more government. When the government fails, the solution is more government.

All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which - from the point of view of their authors and advocates valuations - is less desirable than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter.