Topic: What is the validity of a mixed economy system? (Read 231 times)

A mixed economic system is a combination that combines the advantages of a centralized economic system, a market economy, and a traditional economy. The weaknesses of each system are removed. This system is adopted by many countries in the world. However, the form of a mixed economic system varies from country to country, depending on which advantages are emphasized over other advantages. although a number of large countries adhere to the capitalist and socialist system, they are also involved in a mixed economic system, because each country has targets and goals to be achieved.

Yes, the US is an example of a mixed economy.  Some examples of how the government impacts the economy include laws and licensing requirements that control the ability to buy or sell certain goods/services (liquor laws, gambling laws, excise taxes, licensing for certain professions, etc.), and the government's involvement in building infrastructure such as educational institutions, roads, hospitals, etc.  I don't know of any economy that is truly a free market economy.

The economic life of a country can be very different from each other because of the economic system that it implements. Many think that the success of a system is when the people in it can live a decent and prosperous life. For example, the United States of America is considered to have been able to prosper its people, then the capitalist economic system it uses is considered to be at the forefront at this time.

It's just that not all countries that have adopted a capitalist economic system have succeeded in providing the greatest possible prosperity for their people. There are many other countries with this system that have not shown any results other than competition in the economic field which is getting crazier because it is entirely left to the market.

So, the economic system is used by the state to face various challenges in terms of the economy. This system depends on the situation or conditions that occur in the country and it is possible for a country to change the economic system in order to achieve its goals.

China is a country that adheres to a socialist economic system but the sense of capitalism is even more capitalist than the capitalist country itself like America. I've seen in the book that, changes in the style of economic management in China have taken place since the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. He was the leader of China who implemented this capitalist sense of the socialist system and became China that it is today. The name is a system, there is no standard system because the system will follow the times. Maybe we were all taught since elementary school that the economic system varies as the OP wrote, but due to adjustments, all countries even depend on each other and cause competition that each country must anticipate.

In fact, the initial emergence of a mixed economic system aimed to encourage developing countries to be more productive in overcoming various problems, both problems that arise from internal and external aspects.
As you said that some people still cannot have rights and freedoms regarding land ownership other than being taxed.

Then regarding the combination of capitalism and socialism, I prefer to call it a combination of liberalism and statism, which aims to encourage a more advanced style of the state. In fact, the community is entangled in a regulatory circle that narrows the production area. Society competes with skyscraper factories and is excluded from the market.

Although some of the occurrences of monopolistic activities caused by the government of course lead to supervision and control of the market mechanism. In conclusion, we will see that success in implementing this mixed economic system depends on the integrity of the government and social segments.

True, I can't think of a country that is purely capitalist or socialist, except for North Korea. Last time I watch the documentary, people there still rely on government to provide them with jobs, shelter, clothes, etc. I think private property doesn't exist there CMIIW.

As for modern countries, they incorporate the socialist program into basically a capitalistic society. Social security, healthcare, pension, etc., managed by government funded by taxes.

I don't think there are countries that practice a single kind of economic system as this present times of global change and development. America that was known of capitalism will not be isolated on just that, there many times that the government will take up the regulation of certain sector of the economy and likewise the socialist of China etc. It is for the greater good of the country that mixed economic system was developed. During the medieval era, we can point at economy that were purely a one kind of system, the feuda systems etc but hardly will you find an economy running majorly on that system anymore.

My prefered economic system is the Right Economic System. I don't think it's a good idea to stick to one that probably worked for you at a particular time. I will choose right one that can solve the economic problem of the present, maybe mixed with different right economic systems.
The right economic system should solve economic problems the right ways rather than creating problems while try to solve problems.

I honestly like several aspects of capitalism, same as socialism but I would likely adjust them in a way that is very safe for society and people. It can't be like the model we currently practice today

Now in our world there are no longer purely socialist states, and there have never been communist states at all and, most likely, never will be. A communist society with equality and universal abundance is a utopia, an unfulfilled dream.
China and Russia are cited here as examples of socialist states. These states have long ceased to be socialist states. The division into capitalism and socialism is a thing of the past. Now we need to consider states from the point of view of the development of economies and the degree of citizens' freedoms. At the same time, the political superstructure is already just slogans that do not work in practice.

Well I'd reckon a purely capitalist or socialist country could exist peacefully, but only in the short term. The ones leading would have plenty of control at the start, but reformists would rise up sooner or later since one side is being oppressed or refuses to acknowledge the society. A mixed economy system is much more accepted, especially since arguments and whatnot are mostly fought over with words now, as well as possible benefits and whatnot for both sides. A symbiotic relationship is much more advantageous in the long term after all.

I don't think there is an economy which is purely capitalist or socialist or whatever. I guess every economy has a certain level of hybridity. The US, for example, is a highly capitalist country but it doesn't mean the state is completely hands-off from the country's affairs involving what is supposed to be a free market. China, on the other hand, is considered a socialist country and yet it also doesn't mean the country does not allow private capitalists.

Well, obviously not even the most capitalist country is really a capitalist country in full. There are many services that are usually handled by the government, most notoriously, a large part of the legal system, public security, the army, diplomacy,... So all systems are mixed, it is just a question of were each places itself in the scale.

Perhaps is also a question of naming, as some "socialist countries" are so because a democratic government is chosen and it happens to be left wing under any denomination (labour, socialism, democrat,...) whereas other have purely socialism with a single party.

A mixed economy makes economic stability more secure and prevents market monopolies by certain groups of people, despite the impact of the lack of clarity on the boundaries of government and private sector in the economy.  Maybe I will give some examples of countries that use a mixed economic system including India, the Philippines, and Malaysia.

A mixed economy would provide more opportunities and at the same time it would be more convenient for people to look for other options as a whole. I do think that when we talk about economy, we have to learn to be more "fluid".
We have to learn to understand the fact that "every country is different and everyone needs to develop their economy in a way that it craters to the demand of the majority of the population"
The modifications needs to be done in a way that it's not only suitable for covid but at the same time it's also beneficial for the government and the people alike. I think in most instances it would beneficial to work in a mixed economic situation for sure.

The essence of economics is to provide alternatives, and therefore the opportunity cost of any option is the best value for each option. Therefore, it is not correct to huddle around a particular idea as long as it has proven to be a failure, just as modifying it does not necessarily mean that it is a failed idea.
Don't think of it as black and white or a Bible. If you don't follow all its details, the economy collapses, but exceptional circumstances create exceptional solutions, and those solutions do not change the essence of the idea or make it mixed.
The capitalist economy has also developed a lot over the past 20 years.

I think there are other kinds of economy.

I have made a kind of thread as this, I think from what you have written about mixed economy, capitalism and socialism, none of this system is really free of intervention of government. They are both can be referred to as mixed as some point the government can control through policies  Also in socialism, the government can allow some kind of ownership to big business enterprenuers where tax return are taken.


That is my point. The capitalist system of economy also do some guide from government to regulate the activities of the business environment. So in little ways you can see mixed practice in both and this time in modern times, no socialist or Communist economic system still stays that way without infiltration of some other kind of system for survival purposes.

I personally admire a mixed economy, because neither pure capitalism, nor socialism can lead to a good outcome. We’ve seen socialism flourishing in the USSR, and it is clear that pure governmental control, while keeps things disciplined, results in unhappiness in population, poor life quality and lack of progressive ideas because people don’t develop a business of their own, they only obey to the existing rules.

Capitalism, on the other hand, offers freedom, and seems like a great idea, at first, but things are complicated here as well. The problem is that in a capitalistic system rich people have a great initial advantage over the poor, and are open to more opportunities. Thus, known problems arise, such as monopoly, oligarchy, rich becoming richer, and poor becoming poorer.

Thus, IMO, a mixed economy is a great solution to these problems, at least for now. Maybe someday someone comes up with something better.

"Politics is the Art of the Possible" -Otto Van Bismarck

Mixed economy is politics getting into economics. To keep people happy, you need to provide cushy, comfortable jobs, union representation, assured retirement benefits and a certain sense of job security. All of those things are pretty difficult for a capitalist entrepreneur operating in a growing economy with strapped resources. This is why the idea of state owning enterprises to kickstart economic growth has been used for a long time. People started calling it the mixed economy.

Just because there are government regulations on business does not mean that it is a mixed economy. A mixed economy essentially has state owned enterprises, factories, banks etc etc.

Regulation by itself does not make a capitalist country socialist. Another common perception that government providing any sort of social support is socialism is also not correct. Socialism is defined by collective ownership of the means of production. Does your government own your land, grows food on it or digs your coal? If it does, thats a mixed economy and that kind of a system is quite natural to have in a non-industrialized country. It is definitely pretty valid.

Capitalism built its monuments on the principles of commercial enterprises, profit motives and market systems owned by the uninitiated. Socialism sought prosperity for mankind in a stateowned socially motivated and centrally planned economy in the combination of these two, fascism gave birth to political prestige and military ambition in the shadow of state capitalism. It is based on a mixed economy with some features of welfare capitalism and socialism although there have been some notable successes of these doctrines in a few special cases, they have failed to address the major economic problems of mankind.

Mixed economy is a mixture of multiple ownership structures, multiple economic entities, multiple resource allocation methods, multiple market structures, and multiple distribution methods. Practice has proved that no matter what kind of purely single economic form, it is not conducive to the optimal allocation of resources and the improvement of economic efficiency.

The division of states from a political point of view into capitalist and socialist, in my opinion, is already a thing of the past. Now we no longer have pure socialist states as they existed before the collapse of the USSR. Neither Russia, nor China, nor Cuba can no longer be called socialist states. They are already an example of a mixed economy from this point of view. In the future, less and less will be remembered about the principles of functioning of the economies of socialist countries, since it is already obvious that this was a dead-end period in the development of these states.
In my opinion, there are two vectors - democracy and authoritarianism, and it is from these positions that the development of the economies of states should be considered now.

"Let the path be open to talent."  --Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is known for being pro meritocracy. For society to produce its greatest tangible benefits, requires effectively harnessing the individual intelligence, resourcefulness and creativity of as large a fraction of the population as possible.

A mixed economy gives people more tools to produce value to society. Which in turn creates greater options and opportunities. State subsidies offered by the public sector can maximize funding for projects like Space X. While free markets offered by capitalism and the private sector can maximize opportunities for private ventures like tesla. Both capitalism and socialism, working together can produce more opportunities and tools for people to create value to society, than either system working alone.

Maintaining balance is key. Its easy for an excess of capitalism or socialism to wipe out opportunities and tools people need to create jobs and grow economies.

An economic system is pattern and strategies in which scarce national wealth and resources are control and shared in the economy.There different types of economic system which include capitalism, socialism and mixed economy,to mention but few.

A capitalist economy is an economic system where means of production and distribution are own and control by private sector.Example of capitalist economy include the united state of America.

Socialism is said to be an economic system which means of production and distribution are managed and control by the government.for example china and Russia.

But practically, does a mixed economy exit or is every economy a mixed economy?. After the second world war and the great depression in Great Britain, the classical economists theory of laissez-fair (an economy without government intervention)was highly criticized by John Maynard Keynes which gave birth to a mixed economic system.

What is a mixed economy?
  A mixed economy is an economic system which comprises capitalism and socialism.these entail and economy where means of production and distribution are managed and control by both private and public sectors.

Now even united state of America as an example of a capitalist economy has the government regulating and also taking part in the decision making of the economy.does that makes it a mixed economic also?

Also, socialist countries like Cuba, Russia, and china has public sectors also taking part in the decision making of the economy.does that makes those countries mixed economies?

I stand to be corrected and enlightened though.