Mixed Economy the only real and reasonable economic system?

[AlexES16]

After watching socialism and capitalism, looks like they both fail in idealizing human beings, markets or government(in resume human beings). European countries are mixed economies and USA surpasses England implementing Mixed economy not capitalism.

The American School (also known as the National System) is the economic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century as the country's policies evolved in a free market direction. It consisted of a three core policy initiatives: protecting industry through high tariffs (1861-1932) (changing to subsidies and reciprocity from 1932-1970's), government investment in infrastructure through internal improvements, and a national bank to promote the growth of productive enterprises. During this period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world, surpassing England (though not the British Empire) by 1880.

I find free markets very viable, but not in vital areas like health, education and government. Taiwan implemented socialist principles of education and health at the same time with market economy.

So what you think people?

PS: Why USA don't whant to explore anymore the space?

 

[calculusrocks]

It consisted of a three core policy initiatives: protecting industry through high tariffs (1861-1932) (changing to subsidies and reciprocity from 1932-1970's), government investment in infrastructure through internal improvements, and a national bank to promote the growth of productive enterprises. During this period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world, surpassing England (though not the British Empire) by 1880.

Aside from the Capitalism/Socialism debate, all three of these proposals have flaws.

First, high tariffs protect industry, but at the expense of the consumer. If one country has a lot of sugar, and another country has a lot of wheat, and both are in demand by both countries, it would be foolish to have high tariffs on sugar in order to protect the sugar industry. These tariffs make sure that there is a higher cost of production which is passed down to the consumer, and to the manufacturers.

Second, sometimes government investment in infrastructure is OK, but a lot of the times its just waste. For instance now in USA, the taxpayers make stadiums for our sports teams to the tune of about $1,000,000,000 a piece. If the sports team was really worth that, then the team (or the league) would front that cost in hopes of a return on investment. Our infrastructure has serious flaws, such as the I-35 bridge collapse, and as the Hurrican Katrina pointed out, flaws in the New Orleans levy system. That's because these purchases are not made for the common good, but rather for the expedient graft.

Last, the national bank is a problem. The Federal Reserve is printing more and more money diluting the dollar discouraging saving. Discouraging saving means capital will not be there for sound investments. The USD is backed by other central banks, but its position is more tenuous. In fact, China recently moved the pegs when placing a value of the YEN on the USD.

Remember, an economy doesn't grow because people spend. People spend because an economy grows.

 

[AlexES16]

Aside from the Capitalism/Socialism debate, all three of these proposals have flaws.

First, high tariffs protect industry, but at the expense of the consumer. If one country has a lot of sugar, and another country has a lot of wheat, and both are in demand by both countries, it would be foolish to have high tariffs on sugar in order to protect the sugar industry. These tariffs make sure that there is a higher cost of production which is passed down to the consumer, and to the manufacturers.

Second, sometimes government investment in infrastructure is OK, but a lot of the times its just waste. For instance now in USA, the taxpayers make stadiums for our sports teams to the tune of about $1,000,000,000 a piece. If the sports team was really worth that, then the team (or the league) would front that cost in hopes of a return on investment. Our infrastructure has serious flaws, such as the I-35 bridge collapse, and as the Hurrican Katrina pointed out, flaws in the New Orleans levy system. That's because these purchases are not made for the common good, but rather for the expedient graft.

Last, the national bank is a problem. The Federal Reserve is printing more and more money diluting the dollar discouraging saving. Discouraging saving means capital will not be there for sound investments. The USD is backed by other central banks, but its position is more tenuous. In fact, China recently moved the pegs when placing a value of the YEN on the USD.

Remember, an economy doesn't grow because people spend. People spend because an economy grows.

Good points, but USA implemented neoliberalism and it had many problems, another point is the healthcare system, i watched sicko and the healthcare in USA is so inhuman. And the grow of economy is good, until it is unregulated and environment catastrophes hapen or companies start selling poisoned things. So still Mixed economy is way better and more racional.

 

[Al68]

Good points, but USA implemented neoliberalism and it had many problems, another point is the healthcare system, i watched sicko and the healthcare in USA is so inhuman. And the grow of economy is good, until it is unregulated and environment catastrophes hapen or companies start selling poisoned things. So still Mixed economy is way better and more racional.

First, Sicko was completely fraudulent propaganda. Second, assuming you are using the word "neoliberalism" to refer to economic liberalism, not only wasn't it implemented in the U.S., economic liberalism isn't ever "implemented" at all. By definition, it's what happens when nothing is implemented.

Third, the "problems" you refer to were the result of government regulatory actions, not economic liberalism. The demand for the "poisoned things" was artificially created entirely by government regulation.

The biggest problem with a mixed economy is that socialists repeatedly try to blame capitalism for the problems caused by socialist policy because most people just choose who to listen to instead of bothering to find out for themselves what actually happened.

 

[BoomBoom]

First, Sicko was completely fraudulent propaganda.

Were you planning on backing that statement up with any facts, or are we all just supposed to take your (obviously unbiased) word for it?

 

[Al68]

Were you planning on backing that statement up with any facts, or are we all just supposed to take your (obviously unbiased) word for it?

LOL, well if you are aware of reality at all, it's obvious just from watching it. Or you could search utube for "sicko fraudulent" and watch a few hundred videos about how fraudulent it is.

Or yes, you could just take my obviously unbiased word for it.

 

[AlexES16]

First, Sicko was completely fraudulent propaganda. Second, assuming you are using the word "neoliberalism" to refer to economic liberalism, not only wasn't it implemented in the U.S., economic liberalism isn't ever "implemented" at all. By definition, it's what happens when nothing is implemented.

Third, the "problems" you refer to were the result of government regulatory actions, not economic liberalism. The demand for the "poisoned things" was artificially created entirely by government regulation.

The biggest problem with a mixed economy is that socialists repeatedly try to blame capitalism for the problems caused by socialist policy because most people just choose who to listen to instead of bothering to find out for themselves what actually happened.

Well then Cuba, USSR, and all other so called communist, were not, you alomost talking about idealized economic liberalism, and then ill argue you with idealized socialism, let's be real men.

 

[BobG]

Aside from the Capitalism/Socialism debate, all three of these proposals have flaws.

First, high tariffs protect industry, but at the expense of the consumer. If one country has a lot of sugar, and another country has a lot of wheat, and both are in demand by both countries, it would be foolish to have high tariffs on sugar in order to protect the sugar industry. These tariffs make sure that there is a higher cost of production which is passed down to the consumer, and to the manufacturers.

That would be a lousy tariff (not that it's never happened). The best reason for a tariff is because other countries produce the same products as your country, only so much cheaper that the industries in your country can't compete.

In other words, your country is just starting its industrial revolution and has to compete against a mature industrial country where start-up costs have already been recovered. Industry in your country will never develop since they can't be competitive until they've had time to develop.

Temporary tariffs have a purpose, even if long term use can be detrimental (short term use has its own disadvantages, but can sometimes be outweighed by the benefits of helping industry get a rolling start).

 

[AlexES16]

That would be a lousy tariff (not that it's never happened). The best reason for a tariff is because other countries produce the same products as your country, only so much cheaper that the industries in your country can't compete.

In other words, your country is just starting its industrial revolution and has to compete against a mature industrial country where start-up costs have already been recovered. Industry in your country will never develop since they can't be competitive until they've had time to develop.

Temporary tariffs have a purpose, even if long term use can be detrimental (short term use has its own disadvantages, but can sometimes be outweighed by the benefits of helping industry get a rolling start).

Yep that's what they done to latin america, they want free trade with super powers and industrialized nations

 

[Al68]

Well then Cuba, USSR, and all other so called communist, were not, you alomost talking about idealized economic liberalism, and then ill argue you with idealized socialism, let's be real men.

I agree that no nation has ever had idealized socialism, such as that idealized by Marx. Such an ideal for society would require absolute control over every human. Marx's ideal cannot be met even theoretically, since it also requires that every worker agree with the ideal itself, which would require absolute control over peoples minds as well as physical control.

But economic liberalism doesn't even propose any ideal for society to meet. And it doesn't propose controlling, improving, or shaping society itself. It's not that kind of "-ism".

Capitalism isn't that kind of "-ism", either. It's what people choose to engage in when free to do so, and even when they're not so free. Capitalism has existed in every nation on earth, including Cuba and USSR. They called it "black market capitalism" in USSR because people engaged in it despite its illegality.

 

[AlexES16]

I agree that no nation has ever had idealized socialism, such as that idealized by Marx. Such an ideal for society would require absolute control over every human. Marx's ideal cannot be met even theoretically, since it also requires that every worker agree with the ideal itself, which would require absolute control over peoples minds as well as physical control.

But economic liberalism doesn't even propose any ideal for society to meet. And it doesn't propose controlling, improving, or shaping society itself. It's not that kind of "-ism".

Capitalism isn't that kind of "-ism", either. It's what people choose to engage in when free to do so, and even when they're not so free. Capitalism has existed in every nation on earth, including Cuba and USSR. They called it "black market capitalism" in USSR because people engaged in it despite its illegality.

Yeah and mixed economy knows that, but also you need regulations on the environment, and universal healthcare+education, and maybe the quesitons is, in which system you can colonize the sapace faster and better?

 

[Al68]

Yeah and mixed economy knows that, but also you need regulations on the environment, and universal healthcare+education, and maybe the quesitons is, in which system you can colonize the sapace faster and better?

I'm reminded of a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin regarding what we "need": Necessity is the cry of tyrants and the creed of slaves.

That being said, economic liberalism is no more incompatible with laws against pollution than it is with laws against murder or rape. Those engaging in free enterprise would be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

As far as space colonization, only time will tell, and I don't want to divert this thread into the pros and cons of private vs government space exploration.

And there are already plenty of other threads on the health care debate, too.