This is the debate question. Please provide RFERENCE for work citation.

The time-honored debate that pits centrally commanded socialism against laissez-faire capitalism, embodied by Karl Marx and Adam Smith, continues to dominate not only academic conversations about sound economic theory, but also arguments about the practical role that government should play concerning private-sector entities. The United Statesindeed, the global economyconfronted serious economic challenges in 2008 and 2009 that have resurrected dormant debates about the level of control and governance that central governments should assume regarding private sector organizations. In the United States, that debate can be summarized easily:

What is the proper balance between government intervention in the economy and allowing the free market to thrive?

What is the proper role, if any, for the federal government to assume in the operations and governance of public companies?

Do recessionssuch as the severe global recession of 2008-2009warrant a fundamental rethinking of the role of government in business? Or should companies engulfed by poor management (e.g.,AIG), criticism of what are perceived as uncompetitive products (e.g.,General Motors), or outright fraud (e.g.,Enron) simply be "allowed to fail" regardless of the job losses and effects on suppliers, communities, and business partners that inevitably ensue?

Finally, had the United States and its free-market partners in Asia and Europe taken a more interventionist role in their economies, even to the point of nationalization of core industries, could the global economic meltdown of 2008 and 2009 have been averted?