Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been developments in our knowledge of the market since 1680 (when that quote was uttered).
> There have been developments in our knowledge of the market since 1680 Yes, but the argument for regulation is that said regulation provides more benefits than the incurred costs. Considering how badly regulated markets do.... Remember, regulation is systemic risk.
Beyond that--the lesson that we're learning from modern economics research is that there are no touchstones. Humans aren't rational actors, the efficient allocation theories are predicated on unrealistic assumptions about the behavior of economic actors and the lack of transaction costs, etc. "Laissez faire" isn't any more of a guiding principle than "big brother knows best." The only way to proceed is empirically--use measurements to determine when government solutions are needed and when market solutions suffice.
It's a fairly uncontroversial claim that the market naturally under invents in R&D. It's something you'll see in any basic economics 101 textbook. So why shout "laissez faire" to a government initiative addressing such a market failure?
