Government Intervention In The Economy

[Fleamo]

[Nikola, this is how you do it.]

How much should a government intervene in it's country's economy?  

One option is the command-economy approach.  The idea of this is that the experts in control of the economy know better than the masses, so you give them complete control and the thought is they make it better and the masses don't complain about their lack of control because they benefit from it.  The downside is the lack of control by the masses, and the potential for abuse by those in control.

Another option is the mixed economy approach, which has government controlling some but not all of the economy.  The idea is that individuals control what they can, and the government intervenes on their behalf when they cannot easily do it themselves, such as to force companies to put Nutrition Facts and ingrediants on their foods, and making standards of production like a minimum MPG for cars or environmental controls on industries.  The government also owns some industries like mail delivery and social security.  Drugs and foods can be banned from countries.  The downside is the lack of competition in some industries, and the potential for drugs and foods to be banned which aren't necessarily that harmful(Red Bull, marijuana).  

The other end of the spectrum is the market economy, which has the government staying completely out.  The idea is that people control everything, and the government stays out.  Each person make choices based on self-interest, and the distribution of wealth is based on how hard people work.  Prices are guided by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and standards are driven by consumer demand.  The downside is the possibility for abuse by monopoly, and the potential for consumers being lied to because there are no controls.

Additions?  Thoughts?

How much should the government intervene in the economy?

[Nikola]

I saw this post and clicked...
Then saw my name at the top...
And to this, I ask... what did I do? '.'

[Fleamo]

I saw this post and clicked...
Then saw my name at the top...
And to this, I ask... what did I do? '.'

You didn't make this topic before me.  I asked you to make an economics LoT topic in your welcome thread.

[Nikola]

Oh... 'kay...

Yeah.
Turns out a few minutes ago I just read that post of yours...
^_^;
Sorry about not being responsible enough to check the thread...
I'll make a topic whenever I have the time....
It will probably a lot different...

^_^;

[Random]

I prefer my economies somewhere between socialist and capitalist (market); the people have control over most things, but the government is able to set rules and put sanctions on some things to keep the playing field somewhat fair, and to allow new businesses to grow as old ones begin to decline.

I'm not much a fan of Communism (as practiced by the Bolsheviks), just because I see how Stalin twisted it into something horrible.

Also, just so I can avoid pissing off the wrong people (and instead piss off the right people), I'd like to clarify that I don't really believe in the original Marxist form of Communism. Seems a little too Utopian and unrealistic to me.

[Assault on Mind]

I'm with Random here but then again the economy can't always be stable can it?

[Random]

There's no such thing as a perfect government or a perfect economy, but history shows that the most successful free countries have had some form of capitalism.

Stalin's policies of collectivization are really what brought him down, though; starving five million of your own people isn't usually the best way to run a country.

[Nikola]

I prefer my economies somewhere between socialist and capitalist (market); the people have control over most things, but the government is able to set rules and put sanctions on some things to keep the playing field somewhat fair, and to allow new businesses to grow as old ones begin to decline.

I'm not much a fan of Communism (as practiced by the Bolsheviks), just because I see how Stalin twisted it into something horrible.

Also, just so I can avoid pissing off the wrong people (and instead piss off the right people), I'd like to clarify that I don't really believe in the original Marxist form of Communism. Seems a little too Utopian and unrealistic to me.

Stalin wasn't meant to be up where he was when Lenin died. It was originally meant to be Leon Trotsky. Stalin was stupid enough to case Trotsky to Mexico, and then Stalin's police caught and killed him.
What Stalin did wasn't communism. He even renamed it as "Stalinism".

As for what Karl Marx wrote as being 'unrealistic' is because he was a philosopher. Philosophers always think in the way things, most of the time, should happen or should be.
The thing is, no one is brave enough to do the right thing most of the time. Communism is an acception.

Can't you believe that Two German Jews told an entire country (or just Lenin) what to do by writing a book?
Pretty funny if you ask me...