Where is your stance?
0!
3.1% (2)
3.1% (2)
1
3.1% (2)
3.1% (2)
2
14.1% (9)
14.1% (9)
3-4
25% (16)
25% (16)
5-6
12.5% (8)
12.5% (8)
7-8
25% (16)
25% (16)
9
6.3% (4)
6.3% (4)
10!
7.8% (5)
7.8% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Centrally planned economies Vs free market economies

I think almost everybody agrees that neither a 100% planned economy or a 100% free economy is very ideal.

However, where do you stand on the matter?

For the sake of argument, lets say that we have a scale from 0-10 and that the lower the number is there support you have for a planned economy and that the higher it is the more you support a free market.

So basically:

0: 100% planned economy.
10: 100% free market economy.

Where is your stance and why?

Oh Crap! I did 7-8 because I thought that was centrally planned. Disregard that vote for it, I personally believe the government should have a heavy hand in the economy.

I voted 3-4.

I find this thread to be somewhat... lacking. I'll try and start something here-

Hello escapists! Why do you believe that your country should go in the route you chose? Would you choose a different route if it were a different country with different circumstances, or would you make your choice universal?

I chose 3-4 for my country, but it can change depending on the situation in different countries. It all depends on the culture, manpower ,natural resources and industrial sectors. There's a big difference between Nigeria and the USA.

I went with 7-8 as I feel that it takes some effort to eliminate dominating forces in the economy. I really feel like I'm at 8-9 to be honest though. Simply put, if the government does absolutely nothing to protect the economy from forces like monopolies then our economy will be ruined. Also I am rather strongly in favor of safety nets and public investment in education, to a certain extent defense, and important research.

I went with 3-4 because I feel some laws have to be put in place. If the health of the public is put in danger, then government should step in do something. That's what regulations are for. They're not some cartoonish evil plot to destroy the economy.

It depends though.

For example, I feel that companies should have regulations on how they dump their waste (like not in the drinking supply or in populated areas if it's hazardous waste, it still happens depressingly often) someone might think about governmental red tape. See?

I also think that something which delivers a service which someone else can provide, only better and at a better cost, factoring in externalities should be allowed to fail.

This being said, the numbers are really arbitrary.

I like this question.

In a sense I am always for freedom of the people. The more freedom, the better. The less government, the better.

However, we live in a world where the non-existence of governments is nigh-unthinkable, in which case my view dramatically shifts.

If we are bound to governments, we cannot avoid being enslaved. Since we already are, I preffer knowing straight up that the government is in charge of everything instead of being fed lies and being kept stupid.

Since governments are inevitably in charge (atleast in modern-day society) we can atleast make sure it can function well, instead of having to watch it's every step not to piss off the population. Because IF the government functions well, we will most-likely all benefit from it in the long run.

It's really difficult to quantify something like that. I also don't think it's about "planned economy" so much as "government-run aspects of economy". Governmentally run institutions and corporations can still follow free market principles, after all, and to an extent should.
But then again, there are numerous services that should not be up to the private sector, like police, firefighting, military, transportation, healthcare, education, mail etc..
To use the example of transportation: A privatized train system has little reason to service small towns and dead-ends since all the big money will be made on the large tracks. There's simply not enough profits in those side areas. As such, a governmental institution is better equipped and motivated to provide transportation services to the citizens than a private company would be.
Additionally, governmental institutions can run at a lower cost since its lacking the sort of speculative, CEO, marketing etc. expenses if run properly. So while I'm generally in favour of a free market, there are numerous areas where government must be heavily involved and - if not the sole provider - create a baseline service for everybody to use.
I voted for 3-4, although I think those numbers are somewhat meaningless. I just want them to reflect government involvement where applicable.

I hope that people realize that even Europe is 10 on that scale...

Verbatim:
I hope that people realize that even Europe is 10 on that scale...

Very much untrue. Governments still influence the economy through tariffs, subsidies, exchange rates. (Not sure if those are the english terms) In other words, the governments still control the market to some extent.

EDIT: There are also a lot of laws regarding cartels, monopolies, etc.

Mixed economy with a slight preference to free market.

There's always someone in charge, so better for most citizens if it's our elected representatives and not massive corporations who's only purpose is to make more profit, calling the shots.

That doesn't mean the goverment has to concearn itself with everything. There's room for freedom, but the question is always freedom for whom? Freedom doesn't come for free; it comes at the expense of someone else.

Uh..Tell me,Free Economies ar what exactly is a "Free Economy"? No taxes? No Government Funding? No tax-breakers for whatever reason? You really need to spell this out. How are we supposed to vote if we don't know what "7" means as opposed to "3"?

And off-topic: I've been busy writing my grad-paper, so I haven't been around. Anything new happened in the last month?
(And if you haven't missed me, Then The Bunny Gets It).

Edit: Fixed an obvious error.

Realitycrash:
100% Free Economies are ideal? Uh..Tell me, what exactly is a "Free Economy"? No taxes? No Government Funding? No tax-breakers for whatever reason? You really need to spell this out.

And off-topic: I've been busy writing my grad-paper, so I haven't been around. Anything new happened in the last month?
(And if you haven't missed me, Then The Bunny Gets It).

He didn't say that 100 % free-market economies are ideal, he said that none of the extremes are ideal.

As for the most recent weeks, Danyal got banned.

Hjalmar Fryklund:

Realitycrash:
100% Free Economies are ideal? Uh..Tell me, what exactly is a "Free Economy"? No taxes? No Government Funding? No tax-breakers for whatever reason? You really need to spell this out.

And off-topic: I've been busy writing my grad-paper, so I haven't been around. Anything new happened in the last month?
(And if you haven't missed me, Then The Bunny Gets It).

He didn't say that 100 % free-market economies are ideal, he said that none of the extremes are ideal.

As for the most recent weeks, Danyal got banned.

Fixed that. Point still valid, though. How are we supposed to be able to vote if we don't know what "100% Free Market" means? Or the opposite?

And..What did Dan get banned for?

As Iron Ruler said, it depends on the country. In a democracy, I think vital resources such as energy, water and healthcare ought to be nationalised, as the government has a vested interest in looking after its citizens, whereas corporations do not, and are quite willing to cut services to some if it makes the overall system more profitable (see public transport). Regardless of whether it is nationalised or privatised it should be regulated heavily because when people screw around with vital resources the consequences can be dire.

With other resources like chocolate or hats, there is no real argument for government intervention, although I feel it is fair to tax corporations to help pay for the society that allows them to flourish. Regulations designed to help certain home industries I don't have a clear opinion of because there are many factors involved. Generally policies which help your country at the expense of others I think are damaging in the long run as they encourage a 'race to the bottom'.

As an aside, for logical consistency (ie. to not be a hypocrite) if you are for the free market because of some libertarian notion of personal freedom, then you ought to also reject any restrictions placed on the unions. They ought to be free to do whatever they want to secure the best deal for their members.

Realitycrash:
Fixed that. Point still valid, though. How are we supposed to be able to vote if we don't know what "100% Free Market" means? Or the opposite?

And..What did Dan get banned for?

Our negative preconceptions of it.

I kid, I kid. My guess is that he meant something along the lines of "a 100 % market-based economy where all regulations are handled by the market itself (and not signed into actual law)." If I am wrong about this, OP, do please correct me.

Regarding Danyal, he got suspended for making what was effectively a low-content thread, and then he cluttered up the mod chat before making a snarky, mod sassing comment on there that finally got him banned.

Hjalmar Fryklund:
Danyal got banned.

Does this mean we will no longer have to listen to his claims about how it is ok to have sex with animals?

Hardcore_gamer:

Hjalmar Fryklund:
Danyal got banned.

Does this mean we will no longer have to listen to his claims about how it is ok to have sex with animals?

Yes, it is safe to talk about sex in this forum again without risking the entire conversation getting devolved into a thread about something involving sheep...

On topic: where on the spectrum does Germany pop up? That one. The best and most effective forms of capitalism are heavily influenced and regulated by a government, which can minimize and sometimes outright eliminate the negative aspects of capitalism.

Hjalmar Fryklund:

Realitycrash:
Fixed that. Point still valid, though. How are we supposed to be able to vote if we don't know what "100% Free Market" means? Or the opposite?

And..What did Dan get banned for?

Our negative preconceptions of it.

I kid, I kid. My guess is that he meant something along the lines of "a 100 % market-based economy where all regulations are handled by the market itself (and not signed into actual law)." If I am wrong about this, OP, do please correct me.

Regarding Danyal, he got suspended for making what was effectively a low-content thread, and then he cluttered up the mod chat before making a snarky, mod sassing comment on there that finally got him banned.

Right. Well, that still leaves us with guessing what a "6" is, compared to a "4".

Hardcore_gamer:

Hjalmar Fryklund:
Danyal got banned.

Does this mean we will no longer have to listen to his claims about how it is ok to have sex with animals?

Yes.
It also means we lose his input on every other subject. Which is regrettable. He had valued knowledge and insight.

Realitycrash:
Right. Well, that still leaves us with guessing what a "6" is, compared to a "4".

Not to mention it isn't very clear what type of market the OP is referring to. Typically in these discussions people often stick to thinking/talking about the market of goods and services and only that, while neglecting to consider the labor market, the financial market, and the currency market (also known as the foreign exchange market).

Hjalmar Fryklund:

Realitycrash:
Right. Well, that still leaves us with guessing what a "6" is, compared to a "4".

Not to mention it isn't very clear what type of market the OP is referring to. Typically in these discussions people often stick to thinking/talking about the market of goods and services and only that, while neglecting to consider the labor market, the financial market, and the currency market (also known as the foreign exchange market).

Well, I'm going to go with a..Uh...3?
I believe the market needs to be heavily regulated, and if this means we infringe on peoples freedoms, then it's worth it if the consequences are sufficiently beneficial (and what exactly are those? Well, it's one of those vague trms that are extremely hard to define, and I don't have time or energy to attempt it here).

Yeah, see, that wasn't hard to define at all, eh?

What number would represent corporatism?

5 maybe?

I dislike scales, immensely. There are just two extremes, and I don't know where my opinion falls in between those.

Can you explain what each of these numbers mean?

Nobody is going to be sure what any number means, my 3 may be someones else's 2, while my 9 might be somebody else's 7. Even the utter extremes might be different per different people, with a 0, does the government even prints money, or can there even be a government? Is 10 just all economic choices made by the government down to the worker level, or are we down to 1984 thought police to prevent any kind of private obtaining of wealth? What do the numbers mean, Hardcore?

SimpleThunda':

Verbatim:
I hope that people realize that even Europe is 10 on that scale...

Very much untrue. Governments still influence the economy through tariffs, subsidies, exchange rates. (Not sure if those are the english terms) In other words, the governments still control the market to some extent.

EDIT: There are also a lot of laws regarding cartels, monopolies, etc.

Thats not quite true, and has nothing to do with planned economy.

Verbatim:

SimpleThunda':

Verbatim:
I hope that people realize that even Europe is 10 on that scale...

Very much untrue. Governments still influence the economy through tariffs, subsidies, exchange rates. (Not sure if those are the english terms) In other words, the governments still control the market to some extent.

EDIT: There are also a lot of laws regarding cartels, monopolies, etc.

Thats not quite true, and has nothing to do with planned economy.

Yes it has. This is about government influence vs. no government influence and in this case, it is obvious that the government still has influence. A -planned- economy is simply the extreme end of things. Eventhough the things I stated have nothing to do with the planning of an economy, they're examples of how government still is able to influence the economy, thus you cannot say we are a 100% free economy.

Aspects of central planning, in the right circumstances, have plusses.

In any organisation, it usually helps if someone at the top has an eye on strategic aims for the whole. For a country, that's the government. It may then consider carrying out certain directives to ensure that it has things like the infrastructure and skill base capable of meeting those aims.

I find it very hard to imagine where to draw such a subjective line, however. Not that I think there is one answer anyway, as circumstances vary by time and state such that what is optimal for one may not be for another.

I put myself at 5-6.

I'm not sure where you put non-centrally planned Communism without a single trace of Capitalism, so I just went with 0.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked