I’ve always preferred, “free enterprise.”
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan"……… All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
This is true, so far as it goes.
However, the presence of the freedom he posits as a pre-condition shouldn't be dismissed as a given.
While some elements of a market occur in any conditions, a true efficient free market requires a large number of interacting political, cultural and legal factors before it begins to work.
As somebody said about the the USSR when Gorby was trying to reform it, "Anybody can make fish soup out of an aquarium. It's harder to make an aquarium out of fish soup."
IOW, truly free economies don't "just happen." As can be seen by the fact they haven't existed for most of human history.
Hmmm. The Natural Economy. What holistic, Green Person could be against The Natural Economy?
Technically, we’re really not a 100% free enterprise or capitalist economy: we’re closer to a Social Market Economy.
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia;
A social market economy is a nominally free-market system where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides for moderate to extensive provision of social security, unemployment benefits and recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining schemes. The social market is based on private ownership of businesses.
Currently, the American economy doesn’t have some of these features, such as extensive provisioning of social security or national collective bargaining, but we’re not totally laissez-faire either. I’d say we’re closer to a Social Market Economy than a laissez-faire economy, and getting more so every passing year.
I guess from there we transition to a Mixed Economy, and then to a Socialist Economy, and finally, to Communism.
To be fair, “Free Market” does sound better than “Capitalism”; maybe it’s all those “-isms” we’ve dealt with in the past 100 years or so. Maybe a little re-branding wouldn’t hurt. :)
Thanks for this thread.
Hello, Selwyn Duke - - - . When you say “ - - - consider a 2009 Rasmussen poll showing that “only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.” - - -, “ aren’t you forgetting that the US Federal Government PLANNED to create the 47 % who pay NO personal Federal Income Taxes?
Yep, 100 % - 53 % = 47 %, the same % that like socialism better than having to pay THEIR personal FIT.
It is not the packaging of a word that is important, it is merely people voting with their pocketbooks, as usual.
The solution: “MAKE EVERYBODY PAY, AND SOCIALISM GOES AWAY.”
Capitalism has problems, it caused prices to be artificially high because of the debt driven economy. It only thrives in a “low impact government environment”. Our current government is jealous of the private sector and is at war with it.