Which economic system results in the least wasted human economic potential? Supporting arguments? The reason I have created this poll is because I believe there is a disconnect between the maximum potential output that can be created by an economic system and the productivity/participation of its individual participants. I have included what I believe to be the most relevant economic systems to today's economic landscape, but I am not an economics professor so bear with me if you find the poll choices unsatisfactory. The goal of this poll is to provide another source of information to educate the participants on economic systems they may have previously been unfamiliar with.
Economists have known for a long time now that market prices are the only way to rationally allocate scarce resources. Anything else is arbitrary and irrational, since economic calculation is impossible without them.
Examples: Capitalism - Free market Capitalism/Corporate Capitalism (United States/UK) Social market economy - Germany Social corporatism - Norway/Japan Socialist market economy - China Indicative Planning - Elements found in China, USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Russia today Socialism - USSR, Vietnam?, North Korea
So an argument for free market capitalism? Under free market capitalism, what is stopping these supposed 'market prices' from being manipulated by interests powerful wealthy enough to effect the market on a macroeconomic scale, thus creating a not so free market system? How do these unrestricted power players effect the productivity of the individual, average citizen? How does this kind of market effect the workforce as a whole? And I understand the difference between theoretical and practical applications of economics, my focus is on how the mechanisms of these opposing economic systems act under real world conditions. Isn't it arguable that a free market cannot remain so free when it awards power over the system to its victors? Instead of government setting the parameters under which the market operates, does it inevitably fall to powerful private interests to dictate this (The Good ol' Boys Club)?
Probably capitalism with a carefully balanced degree of socialism that is maintained at about 15 to 38 percent of the economy. Of course, the real danger, as we have seen, is that when the government begins dominating too much of the economy the political control rests in the hands of elitist bureaucrats who start becoming out of touch with the rest of the nation's population. They may have good intentions in mind, but ultimately it becomes very difficult to maintain high standards of living while taking in huge numbers of other people from other parts of the world. The whole system becomes pulled down, and ultimately it fails. It has often been said that, if Capitalists are given enough rope they'll hang themselves on it. Well, that is true for Socialists too. Once they have destroyed the economy beyond repair, the society will inevitably decide to convert back to Capitalism and leave all the impoverished masses to fend for themselves.
Competition. I know it's a vague answer, but you asked a vague question. Prices arise from the arbitrage of the market, not a select few individuals. That's the whole point. You'll have to make an argument why you think they are "unrestricted", and be specific about that. More entrepreneurial opportunities from tearing down barriers to entry. And, consequently, more job opportunities. Capital accumulation increases worker productivity, bringing prices down and real wages up, and therefore increasing standards of living. True free-market capitalism doesn't have a state. The legal system is robust, decentralized, and competitive. When government "sets" the parameters, as you say, they set it to their own advantage, and to the advantage of every corporation that invests its time and energy into buying political influence. - - - Updated - - - How did you get that number?
Near death experiencer Dannion Brinkley was shown while in the out of the body state that his mission was to introduce......"Spiritualistic Capitalism." Once the people with the most money realize that Richard Dawkins Ph. D. is almost certainly lying when he terms himself an Atheist...... ....(his comments in a film on the possible existence of technologically advanced aliens show that he is actually an Agnostic......) ....then the stage will be set for the world's largest investors to begin to worry about the Life Review part of the near death experience...... and they will begin to look at some economic experiments from history with much greater respect. For example... the Worgl, Austria local money experiment that was successfully replicated in over a thousand USA communities....... and altered FDR "New Deal" policy. http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=717
Depends on the availability of natural resources and their dispersion among the population. Look at the opposite ends of the spectrum: The US controls a good chunk of global economics but it is filled with abundant natural resources. Places in the Middle East have nothing but sand and oil and need more government intervention and control to ensure people have basics like food and water.
But..... initiatives like the Sahara Forest Project or The Sahara Solar Breeder Project can transform the economy of a nation like Jordan that has lots of labor.... lots of sand.... but not so many other resources. - - - Updated - - - On the other hand.... I heard a quotation during the 2006 federal Central - Nova debate..... that needs to be remembered..... "There are no jobs on a dead earth" (Green Party candidate, Mr. David Orton)
I think the premise is flawed that economic potential is determined by economic system... rather than personal choice, within any model... lets say I live in an environment where I can grow vegetables and raise animals year round to sustain myself... under any economic system, I would likely be ahead of my peers who do not grow vegetables and raise animals year round to sustain themselves, so I already have an economic advantage without any model changing that, as I no longer have to pay the increased costs from others performing this task for me... unless you're telling me one of these models has a food program for all citizens, or bans you from sustaining yourself and reaping the economic benefits of doing it yourself... doesn't take much work or cost to grow veggies on a balcony even... couple bucks can turn into 50lbs of tomatoes, so I have $100+ in economic value for $2 in costs... and I don't see any system that punishes me for that gain, or taxes me for it... ultimately all the different economic models do is give us a likely spectrum in how high the highs can go, and how low the lows can go... but they don't determine which one has the least wasted economic potential, as it will still come down to choices made within each model that will greatly determine which end of the spectrum you end up on... if anyone can do that with a balcony and a pot... imagine how much economic potential they have with a lawn... but it all goes wasted of they don't CHOOSE to do it... and no economic model changes that... its all about choice and less about model spectrum... and this is just one example of food, countless other examples we could make in other areas...
But that completely ignores the fact that personal choice is limited depending on what you own/control. I can't just start a factory on my land tomorrow without getting the government to rezone it and acquire the necessary capital from loans or investors, but the potential IS there, is it not?
but its still a choice that you have to follow through on, and not everyone can open a factory, or else we would all have 1 person factories... so once again, another demonstration of what I am saying, its a choice under any system to achieve your economic potential and what end of that spectrum each model allows... we have countless examples of extreme wealth under all of them, as well as extreme poverty under all of them, what it boils down to is the choice of individuals within them... the model does not create the economic potential or limit it, ultimately the choices of the individual do... so the premise is flawed that one allows more or less potential... P.S. in my example of growing your own food, under NONE of the economic models is that limited or restricted, but yet people do NOT grow their own food today for the most part, why do people under all these economic models choose NOT to grow their own food when they could reap the economical benefits of it... ITS A CHOICE... in each model they could all receive the economic benefits, yet almost all of them will choose not to receive that benefit, by choice, not limitation of the models...
What I'm trying to get at moreso is how well each model promotes self actualization, or the ability to reach one's full potential, at least in the economic sense. And you have to admit, money plays a big part in reaching that end. Edit: And I'm just going to remind you of our fellow citizens living in the projects and high rise apartments, and those who otherwise don't own land. growing their own food, at least in any significant quantity, may not be feasible.
