Words: 651
In my Economics class, we are discussing traditional, command, and market economies. Some say, “Well, it would be much better if we switched from Market to Command. ” All in all, there are many advantages and disadvantages to this. A command economy limits the personal freedom and individuality of a person, and the central government answers all the economic questions offered. Laissez-faire is predominant in a market economy, which has little government interference.
Although we would like to think that we live in a laissez-faire based economy, this is not true at all. Whether we realize it or not, the government invades everything, whether it be social, economic, or political, every day. Would socialism be an effective idea? Well, everyone would be treated the same, right? The one thing that America thrives on is competition. If we had a socialist economy, there would be no competition. Workers with the same skills and responsibilities, whether it be more or less experienced, would receive the exact same pay.
Is this fair? No, it is not fair. So, what do you all think? I have talked with many about this, and some say we would be better off in a socialist economy, but would you be willing to give up your freedom? I know that I would not be willing to give it up. Thanks for reading! Command economies look good in theory, free health care and all but it also encourages people to be lazy if someone can go to work sit and make the same amount as someone who actually works there is no motivation.
Also there would be no motivation to go to college and acquire skills, so basically what you have is a country full of unskilled workers all doing minial jobs and making minimum wage. That is where a socialistic government makes all their money. Yes everyone makes the same but that “same” is very low. And not much changes for the people in a command economy there is nothing to thrive on. You would probably do the same thing your parents did. Okay…
Command economies do not mean that you sacrifice your personal freedoms; the way that large scale command economies have been set up with governments means that you will sacrifice personal freedom. Also, Lassiez Faire and Communism are two ends of the spectrum. One being the freest markets, and one being the most planned and regulated. Socialism is a range in between with more control than our system, and less control than communism. The more central control there is in an economy the less incentive there is for a person to work. If you will always get the same ay, the same benefits, and the same amount of vacation why would you bother to do something challenging? It would be easier to just half heartedly perform menial labor for the rest of your life that it would be to work hard and become an astronaut or a CEO. The less control there is the more chances there are for inequality. Lots of people won’t have an education and healthcare. Everyone will always be fighting for more, and some people will invariably be crushed beneath the tides. It’s a balancing act of incentives and disincentives.
In response to the comment posted by encol: During his tenure as US president Roosevelt implemented a number of economic reforms, and although labled ‘liberl reforms’ they were in fact social reforms (relative to the usual american market economy of course). After WW2 we also saw from Britian a number of socialist reforms, such as the NHS and increased benefits for the unemployed. What you say is true about the greater number of incentives to work within a market economy, but how is it that despite socialist reforms we still see the US and the UK as two of the most powerful economies?