Labeling and characterizing particular countries economic systems based on how they are organized to allocate societies scarce resources can be a tricky proposition. People tend to insert their own biases in assessing the label.
Here is a simple presentation of the "facts". We can debate/argue the specifics of where a particular country falls on the continuum (I inserted select countries on where I think they fall), but the over-arching considerations should be what I outlined in the textbook:
1. The level of government ownership/control of societal resources.
2. The level of regulation and taxation over economic activity within the country.
For instance, take the US.
The Private Sector holds a vast majority of overall societal resources, but not all. National Parks are one significant "land" resource that I can think of that the Federal Government owns outright. Is this "socialism" in the context of all societal resources combined? I think not so that is why I put it closer to Free Market than Socialism. Does the US regulate/tax economic activity? Yes, to some degree so we cannot give it the full label "Free Market". With this one you have to consider "relative to what/who?"
In this case I choose the UK. In the UK the healthcare system is owned/operated by the government and they have a higher level of taxation compared to the US (this is a generalized statement on my part).
After understanding where you fall on this line, the debate becomes which way is "best" for your country to move---towards Free Markets to the left or Socialism/Communism to the right. This is political tension that is derived from the economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment