I described two different philosophies of running a business (individualist and collective, if you want to phrase it in those terms). In real life, of course, businesses are spread here and there all across the range between the two.

It's important to realize that the companies that are operated with the long run in mind actually not only do better in the long run, but often in the short run, too. It pays to make your employees happy. It pays to pay more attention to the product than to the stock price. It pays to be ethical, i.e. to assume that you will be trading with your customers and suppliers for a LONG time.

The supreme irony is that corporations aren't giving up ethics and good business practices for cash and prosperity. They're often ending up with neither.

As for the philosophical stuff, I probably don't have anything like the same image in my mind as you do when the term "laissez-faire capitalism" comes up. Even granting your vision, I know I personally would greatly prefer to live in the U.S. of the "robber baron" era than I would in any of the communist countries at any time in history.

But your point on balance is a good one. IMO the problem with the modern era is that there are many, many people saying that there isn't enough government control of the means of production and producers. There don't seem to be nearly as many voices saying "what level of control is enough?"

Even businesses back in the 1940s or 1950s, never mind the Gilded Age, would be astounded at the levels of government micromanagement we have right now at every level of commerce. Probably best not to bring up tax rates.