The Pros And Cons Of Socialitarianism

Allan H. Meltzer’s article about socialism published in 2016, titled: Fail and Fail Again: Like a Bad Penny, Socialism Keeps Coming Back is a piece that is effective in displaying many faults within a socialist government. Meltzer shows that socialist governments are proven to fail, while capitalist countries in contrast have a long history of prosperity. Meltzer’s method of displaying this fact and persuading the audience is strong and his thesis is sound. In the use of historical examples, logical explanation, and repetition, he effectively sways the audience’s opinion to his viewpoint.

Nations have debated on which economic direction their country will direct its footsteps since the creation of societies. The United States, being one of the most stereotypical capitalistic nations, began as a Laissez-faire nation, but throughout the centuries America’s economic standpoint has shifted more into Socialism rather than Laissez-faire. The second largest economy in the world, China, is widely understood as being a socialist country, however, for the past years they have been inclined towards a more capitalist nation, but are still officially socialist. Socialism and Laissez-faire both have fatal flaws, but both concepts can be blended and pragmatic to the new millennium while having a positive future.

The free marketplace represents a superlative model of capitalism, since it denotes the most proficient and profitable way of production. In a free market, economic actors are capable of conducting business devoid of political interferences, such as the burden of a minimum wage, or trade in tariffs. Without these limits, economic actors are abridged to a state of clean competition, driving costs downstairs and resulting in senior quality and lower price products.

As Milton Friedman once said, “Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us and history confirms that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power and political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.” Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” takes us into the mind of an economic genius and shows us his beliefs in a free market and the threat it presents to a dictatorship. Friedman, clearly a supporter of the free market, gives examples to show how a free market can aid a society in striving for success, becoming more dominant, and becoming more powerful. Though, at times he does show how a free market has disadvantages and he makes us aware as to how it can aid people in gaining individualism, knowledge, and overall improving a society. A free market is one that the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand, in theory, rather than by government regulation. Milton’s thoughts and theory is that through a robust free market with political freedom, economic freedom will follow. Showing how economic freedom is a crucial toward the success of political freedom, Friedman’s theory of a free market and the Do Nothing Principle are major themes throughout his book.

In today’s capitalistic society, “liberal” and “conservative” are common terms we use to classify a political party, candidate, or even ourselves. But what does this mean? Choosing to identify as a liberal or conservative has a lot to do with what one believes is the appropriate level of government intervention in terms of the economy. Liberals believe it is the duty of the government to act to ensure economic equality and to guarantee that all are provided for. A liberal economy is one in which the market system functions best with government regulation, and the government must protect the economy from monopolies and the greed of big corporations. On the other hand, in terms of economics, conservatives believe in individual responsibility, limited government intervention, personal liberty, and free markets. The free market system breeds competitive capitalism and private enterprise, believing it provides the opportunity for the highest standards of living for all. A central question within regards to international political economy today focuses on the role of government in economic activity – to what extent should government play a role in economic activity? Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are economists in history whose theories are central to the understanding of how the economy works, and how government works within a

Adam Smith, an Enlightenment economist, advocated for a laissez-faire approach to the economy, leaving the citizens the right to control their economic system. He recommended that the government deregulate trade and allow people to be “perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.” (Doc C) Since people work for their own benefit, Smith argued that the workers, while striving for their own economic gain, would ultimately benefit the entire society, “led by an invisible hand,” (Doc C) which would equate the supply and demand of the free market. By giving people the right to decide how the

Capitalism is an omnipresent system that has taken on many unique and defined forms throughout its existence. While capitalism comes in a variety of disguises, one thing about capitalism has always remained the same – the nature of its selfish being. Capitalism thrives on hard work. Individuals that work hard will undoubtedly be rewarded. On the contrary, those that are not able to work are left in a dreadful predicament. Even with two distinct versions of capitalism – plain capitalism and democratic capitalism – both involve the necessary component of free enterprise. Capitalism considers free enterprise something to be achieved individually with rewards intended for just oneself. Adam Smith came along and challenged that notation

Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident

Intended as a proprietor of interests of its citizens, American capitalism has been chosen by the Founding Fathers as their concept of the supreme governing force to establishing a productive, intellectually encouraging society for each individual citizen. Many supporters of capitalism look to it as the only way the interests of citizens can be adequately taken into account, allowing each to accrue unrestricted amounts of private property, while still maintaining a relatively large central government. The emphasis on individual profit has led to widespread success in the economic sector, allowing many to promote their skills to their own advantage. It relies on an invisible hand to guide the collection of the profits of individual effort

Accordingly, one idea or fact that is often raised to differentiate socialism from communism is that socialism in general is the political movement that refers to an economic system in that they believe that the state should be in charge of all important producing industries thus taking hold of the control of free market in order to promote economic parity and egalitarianism. Theoretically, socialism seeks to distribute wealth equally among its citizens in a way that the rich don’t take

Today I have discovered socialism is the norm taught in school, that capitalism and the free market is considered the problem. These concepts avoid the factual truth that socialism is great until: as Margret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, so eloquently explained “you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

The advent of the ideal of capitalism is often attributed to Adam Smith. Sometimes called “The Father of Economics,” Smith was an 18th century moral philosopher from Scotland. Smith is perhaps most known for writing the book “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” In this book Adam Smith considers and advances the ideas of the division of labor, the invisible hand, the pursuit of self-interest, the proper role of government and the idea of a Laissez-Faire (or noninterventionist) economy. Each of these ideas were considered heavily during the establishment and development of the United States. Because of their adoption into the new American government, the United States became the forerunner to the free-market.

Socialism and capitalism are two very different economic/industrious systems but, in some ways, they share a few similarities and that is what this essay will be discussing. The comparison between the two systems and their advantages and disadvantages for those who live in such societies. Socialism and capitalism are marginally contradicting scenarios offering advantages and disadvantages in the world of production and financial assistance.

The two dominant economic systems we have in the world today are socialism and capitalism. In this text, I will in addition to comparing and contrasting socialism and capitalism also discuss the shortcomings of these two economic systems. Further, amongst other things, I will highlight the overlaps between the two.

In economics, some classical liberals believe that ‘’an unfettered market’’ is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses. The minimal government advocacy of an ‘’unregulated free market’’ is founded on an ‘’assumption about individuals being rational, self-interested and methodical in the pursuit of their goals. Adam Smith was not an advocate of pure capitalism. Adam Smith allowed for many exceptions to a strictly free-market economy. The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically. They abolish royal charters, monopolies and the protectionist policies of mercantilism to encourage