A command economy is better than a Capitalist Market economy. Do you agree?Give reason to support your idea.?

Question

In a capitalist market, the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. Those who are from the rich family can send children overseas to study (even with poor results) and when they return, they get better paying jobs.

Discuss.

Answer 1

As a rule, command economies tend to be fairly poor at directing resources to where they can create the greatest utility/benefit. Allowing the profit motive stimulates entreprenneurship as people try to identify better ways to deliver what people want. Even though people are acting out of self interest, the result is resources tend to be deployed where they meet the needs of the greatest number [- Adam Smith's Hidden Hand of the Market].

For example, China is increasingly creating a market economy as a better way of meeting the needs of its people than central command and control. The same thing happened in the final days of the communist Soviet Union. It's not to say the transition from central control to market economy isn't difficult but it does seem to be better at meeting the people's needs in the longer term.

Answer 2

I disagree. A command economy only changes when those who control it order a change. And they can't possibly know enough detail to make an informed decision. But they will almost certainly make decisions that help them or their friends get richer. Look at the old Soviet Union, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or any number of banana republics.

A capitalist economy changes and grows whenever someone takes a risk and succeeds. Someone may see a niche that isn't being filled, or a need that they can satisfy better than someone else. They take the chance, and if they are right, they get rewarded. Yes, the rich get richer, but in large part that's because they learned to see those needs and satisfy them. There are still ways for the average guy to do the same on some scale. Joe Sixpack may not start the next General Motors, but he may start a successful business selling to the public.

A great book on successful people is "The Millionaire Mind, by Thomas Stanley. It covers a lot about the traits and practices that successful people have and use. I'd really recommend that you get a copy and read it. Try the local library - they may even have it on CD.

Answer 3

It sounds like this is a typical question set by a left wing lecturer.
When are they going to admit that left wing/communist type
economies simply do not work. Look at communist Russia and many others. There is simply no incentive for people to try and improve themselves. They become automaton's and are thereby de-humanised.

The idea, that under a capitalist system, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is absolute tosh. It is a tired old arguament that I thought had been put to bed many times. Of course, there has to be checks and balance in any system to prevent abuse.
But you don't need to theorise about these things, just look at the evidence provided by history.

If, under a capitalist system, the rich,(whoever they are) are getting richer, then everyone is getting richer. The economy will be expanding and the goverments tax take will be up, that's how it works. They are not getting richer at other peoples expense. One of the great safeguards in the capitalist system, is competition. A safeguard that doesn't exist in the public sector.
Don't forget that in modern economies, large companies are mainly owned by shareholders who comprise, Pension Funds, Unit trusts, Trade Unions and many others, including small shareholders, particularly in the newly privatised Utility companies.

People need the opportunity to improve themselves, not forgetting, that the majority of new business start ups, fail. You only become aware of the successes. These people have taken big risks and deserve their rewards. In doing so, they are creating employment opportunities for others.

Even this left wing government that we have at the moment, has embraced capitalism, because it knows full well that it is far more efficient than the public sector.

Why should these so called rich people, that you refer to in your question, need to send their children abroad? They can send them to public schools in this country. Incidentaly, the vast majority of parents who send their children to public school are not rich, like some footballers, pop stars, actors and human rights lawyers, but they recognise how relatively poor the state sector is at educating their children. Remember, they are having to pay twice.

Your question is framed with a bias toward the command economy being the better system.

As I stated earlier I simply can't believe that there are people out there who still believe in command economies. You have to have the incentive to make the cake before you start talking about how to share it out. Left wing governments, who want to control everything that their citizens do (nannying), because they see them as children, are only concerned with sharing out what they have not yet baked.

The left wingers are only jealous because they think that they should have all the power and control. They would impose control through a kind of intellectual/idealogical elitism. The end result, of course, is that they would be in control. It's all about power.

I am concerned that you are on your way to being indocrinated.
Being left wing is only good for one thing, ANARCHY.

Answer 4

There are theoretical reasons why a command economy cannot work. Systems theory tells us that to command the economy entirely the economic control system would have to be as complex as the economy itself, which is logically impossible because the control system is part of the economy. And all our practical experience is that command economies are inefficient and tend to give power and welath to a corrupt elite.

On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that an old-fashioned "free market" economy will not work either. As you say, one reason is that the rich have the resources to work the system so that they get richer and richer. There are other reasons too, such as that people left to themselves make economic choices meeting their immediate needs rather than long-term essentials. The classic example of this was that in the nineteenth century the state found it had to intervene in the free market to provide sewer systems in London.

As neither extreme of the command economy or complete free trade works, we need to work towards some intermediate position where we exercise some statistical control over the economy whilst accepting that we cannot have complete control. The trouble is that this is a more complex idea, and less easy to sell politically, than the oversimplifications of either capitalism or communism.

Answer 5

Capitalism beats all. Look at the USA. The state of California alone is the worlds 5th richest economy. Yes, at single state is richer than most countries in the entire world. And its capitalist. Name a command economy that can match the USA's economy?

Answer 6

Your premise is wrong in a socialist capital market the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In a controlled market everyone has a chance to climb the latter of financial sucess provided the governing body promotes competition. The current socialist influencing is taxing everyone but mega zillionaires back to poordom to raise the poor up without working for it heres a copy of my blog.

Have you ever heard the old saying "The rich get Richer while the Poor get poorer." Well at first glance this may seem to be true but lets take a closer look at this dispairity. In the USA we have basically two classes the super rich and everyone else. What causes this distinction? Well the super rich are those who make so much money that no amount of taxation can make them poor, the rest of us are simply taxed back into poverty. America's Progressive tax insures that the more you earn and succeed the larger the percentage of earnings you have to give to everyone else. This is American equality and fairness (thanks to FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great society wealth redistribution schemes), so no matter how much you pull yourself up by the boot straps Uncle Sam is there to knock you back down to even keel with everyone else. So if you work hard, get educated and manage to have some money left over to invest you make virtually the same as someone who doesn't work at all, WHAT'S THE POINT IN WORKING. Why not just sit back and do nothing while the other poor sap earns a living for both of you.

The problem is that these social programs(gov't handouts) are just too attractive. The more attractive they(ie. welfare, Medicaid, HUD, Section 8, food stamps, free social services, free child care, college grants for the poor, ect.) become the more people want to use them. And the more of us who use them the more everyone else's taxes must go up to pay for them, making it even less attractive to work. However, the very people paying for these programs still make enough money before taxes to make them ineligible for the programs, no matter how much they actually take home. So some people actually quit their jobs to gain access to these programs, and the people already on them don't want to lose them so they stay unemployed to keep them. Talk about a cycle of dependancy.

The problem is threefold. First the benefits are just too high, second before tax dollars determine qualification, and third progressive taxes punish acheivement

These "Benefits" are meant for basic subsistance, not a means of a comfortable standard of living. Why would I look for a job when my food and medicine are paid for my rent is reduced and I even get free baby sitting, while still getting enough to party a couple of times a week, buy a decent car and have a reasonable wardrobe. Some of these people live better than I do. Me and my wife make $45,00 dollars a year, own two used cars and live in a slum. We're middle class and live paycheck to paycheck. After rent is paid, food is bought, taxes garnished, doctors and medicine bills paid, we take home $700 a month for extras like insurance and car payments. Hmm, thats about the same as a two person family on welfare, with food stamps, reduced rent, free medical and drugs has left over, tell me who the stupid ones are.

Me and my wife don't qualify for any of these benefits, hell I don't even qualify for unemployment when I go to Nursing school this fall because we make to much. We live the same as a poor person, but we're middle class, which is socialist speak for undeserving of what money already have let alone help from the vast sums of money we've already pumped into the government. Qualifications should be based on what we actually take home instead of these Imaginary "before tax dollars".

Thirdly a flatter tax rate would not punish people for being middle class or rich for that matter, people might actually want to work if they made more by doing so. Have yo ever noticed that even in a deep recession where unemployment sits at about 15% the papers and shop windows are still loaded with "Help Wanted" ads. Thats because people don't want to work not because they can't find work. If they get a job they lose their medical, their perscriptions, their rent goes up, they have to pay for food and child care out of their own pocket. Why the hell would they want to work themselves into the poor house?

Answer 7

perchance you heard a mendacity atheist. I even have got here upon that Christianity truly thrives under tyranny. Christianity isn't flourishing interior the country. some thing linked with church and faith may be flourishing, yet no longer Christianity. Christians have not cornered the marketplace on ego or selfishness...you atheists compete with us alright.look on the conceitedness on your alleged question. it truly is not even a question which you propose so some distance as I see it truly is to evangelise.. to evangelise atheism. and you're extra passionate than a pentecostal in revival.

Answer 8

Command Economies inevitably produce elitists. There is nothing egalitarian about those types of societies, no matter what lies they tell their enslaved masses.

Answer 9

I thought this arguement was long since settled with the collapse of communism in Russia and China