The issue of how much government should be involved in the economy has been the subject of much debate in canada. in the united states, ideology has played a major role in influencing americans to believe that, in principle, the government should “butt out.” this thinking ignores the significant role that the u. s. government has played and continues to play in the country’s economy. (in comparison, the governments in france and sweden are more socialistic in nature.) in canada, we are less negative and perhaps more pragmatic: if it works, let’s do it. but where do we go from here? do we need less or more government involvement? is it a question of the quality of that involvement? could it be smarter rather than just less? how can the cost of government involvement decrease?

But where do we go from here?

It depends on the result of more government intervention on quality life standards.

Do we need less or more government involvement?

It depends on the problems that need to be addressed. For example, to address problems such inequality it is mandatory that the government gets involve and create laws to prevent it. But surely for more movement of capitals there is no need of higher government involvement.

Is it a question of the quality of that involvement?  

Yes. If government has an effective involvement there is even desirable to have its intervention but if it complicates everything then is repeled.

Could it be smarter rather than just less?

Yes, because it is proved that the economy acts in an effective way to good policy making.

How can the cost of government involvement decrease?

In this aspect it is important to mention the environmental issues in nowadasy economy. If the measurement of what is defined as "cost" is understand in the long run as conservation and balance between nature and economic explotation of resources.

d. automatic stabilizers.

explanation:

answer; functional fixedness;