Topic: Is the US Moving Away from Capitalism and Free Market? - page 2. (Read 350 times)

And which one you prefer? Or you have your own "theory?"

there's essentially 2 schools of thought on this. the austrians and other austerity supporters think perpetual growth is a fairy tale and that the market should be left to its own devices even if that means a depression wiping out much of the economy.

the keynesians and other demand side economists see a depression as the ultimate evil, much worse than money printing and bailouts.

In the name of democracy and the free market that is always echoed by the US the government should not intervene. Although the market mechanism is not always effective and efficient. because what is needed by consumers and suppliers is not always available, so that sometimes causes excess or lack of inventory in the market. Competition is not always effective, unfair competition such as monopoly will greatly disrupt the market balance. The emergence of community needs that cannot be provided by the market, such as public facilities.

Learning from the great depression, I think the historical evidence of the failure of the free market system, the government does need to intervene in the market with an adjusted level. Government intervention policies in the economy must develop that are adaptive in nature and adjust to market conditions.

I believe there should be an intervention, at least until the market is again open, and people can go about business as usual.

* What do you think? It seems like the US is moving closer to central planning since the government decides to interfere with the free-market.

* At the time of this pandemic, should the government let the market regulate itself?

* What is the rule of the government in this "new capitalist" system? Should it be called "pure capitalism?"

* What do you think? It seems like the US is moving closer to central planning since the government decides to interface with the free-market.

* At the time of this pandemic, should the government let the market regulate itself?

* What is the rule of government in this" new capitalist "system? Should it be called" pure capitalism?

* What do you think? It seems like the US is moving closer to central planning since the government decides to interfere with the free-market.

* At the time of this pandemic, should the government let the market regulate itself?

The economic world order is changing whether we like it or not. You can see it happening as people and companies around the world are losing income and savings, and central banks and governments are providing them money to try to compensate for those losses. And you can see it as the free market is no longer determining the allocation of capital — governments are.

Central governments and central banks are now creating trillions in money and credit and directing it to those they want to receive it. This will soon be followed by a debate, perhaps even a fight, about where this money should come from and who should have what in the new world. Such controls of spending and the ensuing political conflicts over it have occurred many times in history, especially when severe economic and financial downturns were accompanied by high levels of indebtedness and large wealth gaps. History has taught us that these conflicts take place both within and between countries. How these conflicts are resolved will determine whether the economic pie will grow and be divided well or contract and be divided through fighting.
Chances are that the new system we end up with will be significantly different from the capitalist system that we've gotten used to.

...

To make society work better, the new system must both increase the size of the pie and divide it well. Our ability to consume is dependent on our ability to produce, not the amount of money we get in the mail. You can't eat money. Somebody must get paid to produce and deliver what we consume. And we can't raise our living standards by just giving people money — they need to be incentivized to produce, and that must be done cost-effectively through some system that is not administered from the top. Most fundamentally, that system must strive to provide 1) equal opportunity to all those who have the potential to produce (because that is both most fair and most productive) and 2) basic needs to those who are unable to (because that is humane and what is fundamentally needed to have a good community).