Capitalism is an Economic and Social System in Which Trad1

8/14/2019 Capitalism is an Economic and Social System in Which Trad1

1/31

AHMAD MUSTANIR BIN HADADAK

i. Capitalism is an economicand social system In which trade, industry and the

means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled (either

singly or jointly) and operated for a profit. Capital is vendible, which means it can be

owned, operated, and bought and sold for the purpose of generating profits for

private owners, either singly or jointly.

ii. In a capitalist system, investments, distribution, income,production, pricing and

supply ofgoods,commoditiesand services are determined by private decisions,

usually within the context of markets. In a capitalist state, private property rights are

protected by the rule of law of a government through a limited regulatory

framework.

iii. Although the role of government has varied widely in capitalist systems, the term

"capitalism" is often used to refer specifically to free market capitalism. In a free-

market capitalist state, legislativeaction is confined to defining and enforcing the

basic rules of the market,although the government may provide some goods and

infrastructure.

iv. This contrasts with economic planning, in which the state directs what shall beproduced based on rational economic planning. This also contrasts with

decentralized economic planning and democratic worker management.

v. Capitalists believe that the privatization of state-provided services can achieve

more efficient outcomes by enabling them to better respond to market forces. Free-

market capitalists usually support free trade and the abolition ofsubsidies.

vi. Some consider laissez-faire to be pure capitalism, although it has never existed in

practice.Laissez-faire signifies minimizing or eliminating state interference in

economic affairs, allowing the free play of supply and demand.

vii. All large economies today have a mixture of private and public ownership and

control, so some feel that the term mixed economydescribes most contemporary

economies.In the capitalist mixed economy, the state intervenes in market activity

and provides many services.

1 | P a g e

CAPITALISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(business)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production,_costs,_and_pricinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-fairehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(business)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production,_costs,_and_pricinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-fairehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy


2/31


ORIGINS

According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the

European "crisis of the fourteenth century," a conflict between the land-owning

aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs.

Feudal arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways

for both the serfs and the lords. Serfs were forced to produce for lords, enervating

interest in technological innovation. Similarly, cooperation was discouraged by each

serf's preoccupation with sustaining their own families.

For their part, the lords used force to ensure they received sufficient food, and with

no market or competition, felt little pressure to innovate.

Finally, because lords expanded their power and wealth through military means,they spent their wealth on military equipment or on conspicuous consumption that

helped foster alliances with other lords; there was no incentive to invest in

developing new, productive technologies

This arrangement was shaken by the demographic crisis of the fourteenth century.

This crisis had several causes: agricultural productivity reached its technological

limitations and stopped growing; bad weather led to the Great Famine of 1315-

1317; the Black Deathin 1348-1350 led to a population crash.

These factors led to a decline in agricultural production. In response feudal lords

sought to expand agricultural production by expanding their domains through

warfare; they therefore demanded more tribute from their serfs to pay for military

expenses. In England, many serfs rebelled.

Some moved to towns, some purchased land, and some entered into favorable

contracts to rent lands, from lords desperate to repopulate their estates.

Marx labeled this period the "pre-history of capitalism" It was, in effect, feudalism

that began to lay some of the foundations necessary for the development of

mercantilism, a precursor to capitalism. Feudalism took place mostly in Europe

and lasted from the medieval period up through the 16th century. Feudal manors

were almost entirely self-sufficient, and therefore limited the role of the market.

2 | P a g e

THE HISTORY OF CAPITALISM

IDEAL MARKET CAPITALISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Deathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_periodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Deathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_period


3/31


In a market capitalist system, capital and land are private property. Enterprises may

be formed by individuals who can get access to land and equipment, either because

they own it or can rent or borrow to get it, and who can hire labor or employ themselves.

i. Enterprises organize and direct production, and they are operated for the private

benefit of the person who organizes the enterprise. Private benefit is interpreted as

profit, so we say that the enterprises maximize profits.

ii. In a capitalist economy or in any economy, production is limited by existing

resources and technology. We can express this limit with a concept from

neoclassical economics:

iii. The production possibility frontier. Once again, we will use the simplified production

possibility frontier for Economia , which produces only machinery and food. Here

it is, to help jog your memory. The idea is that economia can produce any

combination of food and machinery on or below the curve.

Figure 1

The economy can produce only combinations on or below the curve. But what

combination of goods will be produced? Of course, that will be determined by and

equilibrium of supply and demand, but we can skip over a many of the details from

chapters 3-14 above. In an ideal market, production at market equilibrium will give

the highest possible market value

3 | P a g e
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Neoch/Eco111p.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Neoch/Eco111p.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Neoch/Eco111p.html


4/31


Figure 2

The result is shown in Figure 2. In the Figure, the line indicated by Y1 shows all

combinations of food and machinery that add up to the same market value a value of

Y1. Similarly, line Y2 shows all combinations that add up to a market value of Y2,

and line Y3 shows all combinations that add up to a market value of Y3. The slope of

all three lines is the same, and it is the relative price of food and machinery -- the

amount of machinery we have to give up in the marketplace to get one more unit of

food. We see that Y2 is the highest market value that can be produced, and it can be

produced only if the combination of food and machinery is on the production

possibility frontier at point *. And it makes sense that an economic system based on

profit would produce that amount. If it did not, some enterprise would be able to

increase its profits by shifting its production toward a higher market value.

But combination * is not just the greatest market value. In the ideal market capitalist

system, the prices reflect consumers' "marginal benefits," and that means that the

combination of outputs at * is efficient.

Of course, there may be other things about capitalism that are more important than

this. Some economists would argue that it is the creative act of forming enterprises

and discovering new technologies that is most important, especially in the long run,

and that even a capitalism that departs quite far from this ideal could still have greatadvantages.

But this discussion summarizes the argument for market economies in neoclassical

economics, and thus it summarizes the neoclassical ideal conception of capitalism.

4 | P a g e


5/31


Enterprises in capitalism as Adam Smith and Karl Marx knew it were typically

individual proprietorships. There were few corporations, and probably none in the

modern sense, in Smith's time. Smith regarded corporations as hangovers from

feudal times, and saw no future for them.

This early form of capitalism was proprietary capitalism. One problem for

proprietary capitalism is that these individual enterprises seldom got very large,

by modern standards.

This meant that many projects that could have been useful and profitable could not

be undertaken by capitalist firms, because the projects were too large -- there were

no enterprises large enough to afford them. Modern corporations came into

existence to finance and administer these huge projects -- canals, railways,

telegraph and telephone systems, gas and electric power distribution.

(Nevertheless, government carried out the large-scale projects in many

capitalist countries). The corporations became more predominant, transforming

proprietary capitalism into corporate capitalism.

The collapse of world markets in the period 1930-1940 threatened to destroycapitalism entirely. After some delay (and in the context of world war)

governments stepped in to support capitalism by various means of regulation,

controlling money supplies, and government expenditure.

Thus, market capitalism was transformed into government-managedcapitalism.

Sometimes called a "mixed economy," because it relies largely on markets but

partly also on government to direct the economy, this system has been predominant

during the second half of the twentieth century.

Conservatives deplore this, and there have been conservative governments

pledged to return to pure market capitalism, from time to time, in most major

capitalist countries. But they have been unable or, perhaps, finally unwilling to do it.

No matter how ideologically committed, governments have not yet been willing to let

markets find the way, fail if they would, and let capitalism be destroyed by the failure.

5 | P a g e

KINDS OF CAPITALISM


6/31


In ideal market capitalism, the equilibrium outputs are efficient. Efficiency isimportant, but there are some criticisms even of ideal capitalism.

Most fundamentally, the prices in the marketplace reflect consumer preferences.

Thus, in ideal market capitalism, production is directed by consumer

preferences. It is not clear that production should be directed by consumer

preference, though. To say that production ought to be directed by consumer

preferences (called "consumersovereignty") is a value judgement , not a law of

nature, and some people may disagree with it.

So even an ideal capitalism might have some shortcomings, depending on one's

value judgements. But any real capitalism will fall short of the ideal, and real

capitalisms have fallen short in several predictable ways:

a) Monopoly andrestricted competition may cause prices and output to deviate

from the efficient ones, and they are likely also to increase inequality, especially if

competition for labor is limited.

b) Markets may not respond efficiently to cases where costs and benefits are"external,"and public goodsmay not be produced in efficient quantities.

c) Real-world markets may not move toward an equilibrium of supply and demand.

Perhaps for some of the reasons discussed by Keynesian economics, or for

other reasons, markets may settle into stable conditions quite unlike the

equilibrium of supply and demand, and quite inefficient and non-optimal.

One response to these criticisms is that government can step in and correctthe

failure of the market to provide the desired and (in some cases) efficientoutcome.

But this is rather a long list of jobs for government, and if government does any large

fraction of them, we no longer have market capitalism but government-managed

capitalism.

6 | P a g e

PROBLEMS OF CAPATALISM
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Monch/Ch10ToC.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Imch/Ch11ToC.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Imch/Ch11ToC.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/Ex1.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/Ex1.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/PG3.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/PG3.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/equil/Ch20ToC.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Monch/Ch10ToC.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Imch/Ch11ToC.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/Ex1.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/Ex1.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/Govch/PG3.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/equil/Ch20ToC.html


7/31


Ideal market capitalism says nothing about social classes. In principle, it might

be a classless society -- that is, a society with only one class, without class

divisions . The one class might be a class of yeoman market farmers. But, in

practice, market capitalist societies have been divided between two classes with

quite different conditions: employers and employees.

The revolutions and gradual changes of the two centuries before 1800 had

eliminated the special role of the old aristocracy and transformed them (at best)

into capitalist land-renters.

The socialists looked forward to a future in which the class of capitalist

employers would also be eliminated as a class, with the former employer class ortheir descendants having to work for a living as the vast majority already do.

This would be a society with only one class, the working class; a society without

class distinctions and thus a classless society. In the words of W. Arthur Lewis, a

spokesman for the Fabian Socialist Society in the 1940's socialism is "democracy

and a classless society."

Perhaps we should treat "democracy and a classless society" as a definition of

democraticsocialism. Then socialism means just a society with only one class, the

working class, regardless of the system of government.

Certainly there were people who favored a dictatorial socialism, "dictatorship and a

classless society." Nicolai Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, was one of

them. Their idea was that the dictator would be the voice by which the working class

would express its government of society. There were also libertarian socialists, that

is, people who favored a classless society with the maximum of possible political

liberty. Some of the libertarian socialists were anarchists, who wanted a classless

society with no government at all.

When it is put that way, perhaps the terms "democratic socialist," "libertarian

socialist," and "anarchist socialist" may not seem so strange. Is there

something about a classless society that requires the existence of a

government? The only balanced answer is "maybe."

7 | P a g e

CHALLENGES OF CAPITALISM


8/31


All of these socialist ideas have been controversial from the beginning, and have

been critical of one another. For example, the libertarian and democratic socialists

often argued that a dictatorship could not co-exist with socialism, since the

bureaucracy and political groups surrounding the dictator would eventually form a

new exploiting class, and re-establish capitalism with themselves as the capitalists

This is probably what Lewis had in mind when he included democracy in his

definition of socialism.

There have always been several schools of thought on this, among socialists. Karl

Marx and Friedrich Engels, the major theorists of socialism in the 1800's, were

careful not to describe a "socialist economic system" (though they clearly had

their own opinions of what it was likely to be). Instead, their position was that the

economic system of a socialist society should be decided democratically by the

workers themselves.

Another element in this mix was communism. Originally separate from socialism, the

communism saw competition as the root of all evils. In the communist society, the

economic rule would be "from each according to his ability, and to each

according to his need." But that rule could not be applied in a capitalist society,

because of the defective human character capitalism produces.

Communists believed that human character is formed by the environment. Acompetitive environment would cause people to grow up greedy and aggressive.

But, in turn, a population of greedy, aggressive people would create a highly

competitive society, so that their children, too, would be greedy and aggressive.

Thus, the communists saw the social evils of aggression and competition as the

result of a vicious circle. To break the vicious circle, the communists felt that the

small, intelligent minority who understood this truth should take power as a

dictatorship, an "educational dictatorship," and ruthlessly suppress competition,

and direct the allocation of resources "from each according to his ability, and to each

according to his need."

Thus, over a few generations, a new virtuous circle might be set in motion, in which

sharing and action on behalf of the whole population would replace greed and

aggression as the basis of society and human character.

8 | P a g e


9/31


Once again, how can the planners get the information they need?

One possibility is to ask the enterprise managers how much they can produce. Let's make

the optimistic assumption that the enterprise managers will tell the truth -- either because

they are nice guys or because the planning bureau has found some costless way of giving

them an incentive to tell the truth. The planning bureau could start out by sending the

enterprise managers a tentative list of outputs to produce, and ask the enterprise managers

how much resources they would need to produce that list. Then add up the resource

demands and compare them with the resources available. Adjust the tentative plan

accordingly, and try again. Keep trying until the plan is (pretty close to) optimal. Each of

these tentative lists of outputs is called an "iteration" of the plan.

Figure 3

Figure 3 shows one possible series of iterations of the plan. The bureau starts out

optimistically with a tentative plan at A. Looking at the diagram, we know that A is

infeasible. That means the enterprises' resource requirements will add up to more

resources than are available. Adjusting, the planning bureau folows up with B. That doesn't

really help -- B is infeasible, too -- but with the information they have gotten from theenterprises on these two attempts, the plan bureau is able to make its third iteration C. That

is an improvement -- C is feasible -- but C is not efficient, since enterprises are capable of

producing more than C with available resources. On the next round, then, the planning

bureau scales up the production amounts to D.

9 | P a g e

CENTRAL PLANNING1


10/31


This is better still -- D is efficient, that is, on the production possibility frontier -- but it is not

optimal. With the available resources, the planning bureau would prefer to see more

machines and less food produced. By now, however, the planning bureau has gotten the

information they need, and on the next iteration they move up the production possibility

frontier to *, the optimal plan. This is the plan they direct the enterprises to carry out.

This is a very optimistic story. There are many pitfalls that could make it difficult to move

to an optimal plan, and further problems in making the plan work even if it were optimal.

Even if the enterprise managers tell the truth, it might take many costly iterations of the plan

to get to the optimum at *. Worse, the enterprise managers have strong incentives to lie and

distort their productive potential and resource needs. Suppose that I am an enterprise

manager, and I guess wrong, thinking that I can produce 2000 with 500 of resources. In

reality, I can only produce 1000.

So the planners send me 500 of resources, and an order for 2000 olf output, and when I try

to do it, I find I cannot produce what I have been ordered to produce. By the time I have

found out, I'm in trouble. On the other hand, if I had lied, telling the planning bureau that I

could only produce 500, then the 1000 actual production would leave me in very good

shape. I would probably only send in 700 or 800 of my production, hiding the rest in case I

should have some problems next year. On the other hand, the planning bureau may have

other information. In most cases, they can take it for granted that the quantities produced in

earlier years are feasible, and they may be able to use statistical, engineering and

computational techniques to fill in the information they don't get from the enterprise

managers.

Then again, even if the plan is optimal -- by the preferences of the planners -- the

consumers may not be very happy with it. If the planning bureau tells the enterprises to

produce one finger brush per person, the chances are that the consumers won't buy them all

at any price, nor use them even if they are free.

Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that an optimal planning system might be

set up, might be successful, and might improve human life from many points of view. The

problems that would have to be overcome are difficult ones, and no-one knows now how to

resolve them.

But human beings are inventive, creative beings, and it may be that future generations will

come up with solutions that we cannot now conceive.

10 | P a g e


11/31


Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating

governmental or whole community ownership, and administration of the means of

productionand distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to

resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.Modern

socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political

movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on

society. Karl Marxposited that socialism would be achieved via class struggleand a

proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from capitalism to

communism.

The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen, tried to found self-sustaining

socialist communities within a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon, the first

individual to coin the term socialism, was the original thinker who advocatedtechnocracy and industrial planning. The first socialists predicted a world improved by

harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many

contemporary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favor an

authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern

socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have

advocated the creation ofcentrally planned economies directed by a state that owns

all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and

Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market

socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market

exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production)

11 | P a g e

S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.MCHINA??? RUSSIA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_classhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_enterprisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_strugglehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint_Simonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_price_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_classhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_enterprisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_strugglehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint_Simonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_price_system


12/31


Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in

mixed economies, with private ownership of property and of profit-making

business. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and

regulation of markets. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare

states, refer to themselves as "socialists", introducing a degree of ambiguity to the

understanding of what the term means.

Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism)

rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct

collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils

and workplace democracy.

Origins

The English word socialism (1839) derives from the French socialisme (1832), the

mainstream introduction of which usage is attributed, in France, to Pierre Leroux

and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827, father

of the cooperative movement.

Western European social critics, including Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, Charles Hall and Saint-Simon, were the first

modern socialists who criticised the excessive poverty and inequality of the

Industrial Revolution.

They advocated reform via the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the

transformation of society to small communities without private property. Saint-Simon

delineated collectivist principles to reorganize society and build socialism upon

planned, utopiancommunities.

Linguistically,the contemporary connotation of the words socialism and

communismaccorded with the adherents' and opponents' cultural attitude towards

religion.

In Christian Europe, of the two, communism was believed the atheist way of life. In

Protestant England, the word communism was too culturally and aurally close to the

12 | P a g e

THE HISTORY OFSOCIALISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_councilshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Lerouxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Roch_Louis_Reybaudhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_movementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hall_(economist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_Comte_de_Saint-Simonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_councilshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Lerouxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Roch_Louis_Reybaudhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_movementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hall_(economist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_Comte_de_Saint-Simonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


13/31


Papist Roman Catholic communion rite, hence English atheists denoted

themselves socialists

In 1847, Friedrich Engelssaid "socialism was respectable on the continent, while

communism was not." The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were

considered socialists, while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity

of total social change" denoted themselves communists.

This latter branch of socialism was powerful enough to produce the communisms of

tienne Cabetin France and Wilhelm Weitlingin Germany

1) As we have seen, many socialists saw a planned economy as a means for the

economic organization of a classless society. Everyone would be of the same class

-- government employees.

2) One of the clearest and most complete proposals along these lines came from the

Fabian Socialist Society in Great Britain,under the leadership of Sidney Webb,

in the first half of the twentiethcentury. Webb envisioned a socialist country with

a democratic parliament, much like the British one in his time. Once the governmenthad taken over the control of production, the management of enterprises would

become part of the civil service.

3) That sort of "democratic socialism" has never been tried in an industrialized

country. Perhaps, if it had been tried, it might have worked -- though, as we have

seen, the obstacles are pretty discouraging, and no doubt that is one reason why it

has never been tried.

4) However, the Soviet Union adopted a system based on it, roughly from 1930 to

1989. The Soviet Union had come into existence in the Revolution of 1917 that

destroyed the Russian Empire. Nicolai Lenin (aka Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov) made

himself its dictator and was succeeded by Joseph Stalin.

5) Under Lenin's government there were a series of experiments in economic

organization; but Stalin adopted something like the system Webb had proposed. The

13 | P a g e

SOCIALISM AND PLANNING
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy)#The_Communion_Ritehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oweniteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourieristshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%83%C2%89tienne_Cabethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Weitlinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Weitlinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(liturgy)#The_Communion_Ritehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oweniteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourieristshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%83%C2%89tienne_Cabethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Weitling


14/31


Soviet legislature was not the democratic parliament that Webb had in mind --

although at one point Webb managed to persuade himself that it was close enough.

6) However, in the context of a dictatorial political system, the Soviet Union did

organize its different branches of production into ministries, making the managers

part of the governmental "apparatus." They did also adopt a system of planning

that involved tentative plans and repeated iterations, along the lines described in the

last system. (In fact, that discussion was suggested partly by the historical

Soviet planning system.)

7) However, they never really tried to get to an optimal plan. Indeed, they don't even

seem to have tried to make the plan efficient. We should keep in mind that, at the

beginning of the Soviet planning system, there were no computers. The Soviet

civil service and business management were backward, even by noncomputerizedstandards. In its earlier period, the Soviet government was quite terroristic, and in

the later period corruption became the major factor in the economy.

A system of independently managed government-owned enterprises maximizing

profits at market prices would run into some of the same problems that market

capitalism would. Like market capitalism, the values it would realize would be

consumer preferences, not other kinds of values that some may feel are "higher."

Monopoly and externality could also be pro

. Thus, in practice it would be necessary for a market socialist society (like a market

capitalist society) to mix in a good deal of government control of the economy. On

the other hand, centrally planned economies always had some markets. Thus, it

might be hard, in practice, to find the boundary between real market socialism and

real government-controlled socialism.

During its period of communist government, the Hungarian Republic adopted

reforms that made it a fair approximation to "market socialism," and the

14 | P a g e

PROBLEMS OF MARKET SOCIALISM


15/31


16/31


the control of enterprises and the control of government is especially difficult to

establish.

What can we say about efficiency in a labor-managed socialist market

economy?

Beginning in the late 1950's, a number of economists explored that question. As in

the neoclassical theory of capitalism, they began from the assumption that the

enterprise would maximize something. If it is managed in the interest of the

employees, the enterprise would not maximize profits, but it might maximize income

per employee. That is the assumption with which we begin. Next, we make the usual

assumptions of "perfect competition:" all inputs and outputs are homogenous,

including labor, and prices of all goods and services are determined by supply and

demand. Wages are not determined by supply and demand, however -- the

enterprise' wage is simply its average sales revenue per worker.

Figure 4

We can visualize the difference between an ideal labor-managed enterprise and an

ideal market capitalist enterprise in Figure 4. The downward sloping line VMP is the

value of the marginal product curve -- the price of output times the marginal

product of labor. The curve AR is the average sales revenue per employee,

16 | P a g e

LABOR - MANAGEMENT 1
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/MPCH/firm7b.htmlhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/MPCH/firm7b.html


17/31


excluding the costs of inputs other than labor -- the price of output times the average

productivity of labor, net of the fixed costs of production. The line OC is the

opportunity cost of labor -- the market value of the marginal product of labor in other

industries. Thus, in an ideal market capitalist system, OC is the wage, and the

enterprise would employ N2 units of labor. By contrast, the labor-managed

enterprise will employ only N1, since income per employee is largest with N1. This is

inefficient. There has been a good deal of controversy about this analysis, but what it

seems fair to say is this: in at least some circumstances, a labor-managed enterprise

would have a motivation to restrict its hiring to a work force smaller than the efficient

size.

This applies only in the short run. We know that this result would not be stable in the

long run, in an ideal market capitalism, since the enterprise is making an economic

profit. That is, there is revenue in excess of the labor cost and also in excess of the

nonhuman costs (because of the way the curve AR was constructed). Therefore,

with free entry, more companies will enter this industry and compete for some of

those profits. So the price will drop, and the AR will shift downward until we have the

situation shown in Figure 5:

Figure 5

What we see in Figure 5 is that, in a long-run equilibrium, the capitalist firm and the

labor-managed enterprise employ the same labor force, N1. Since we know this is

efficient, we see that the labor-managed enterprise, like the market capitalist

enterprise, is efficient in long-run equilibrium.

17 | P a g e

PROBLEMS OF LABOR


18/31


In comparing ideals, then, we may say that the labor-managed enterprise may be

somewhat less efficient in the short run, but equally efficient in the long run. But

there are practical difficulties on both sides. In the labor-managed enterprise, we

may have higher labor productivity because the employees feel they are "working

for themselves." Many economists have expressed skepticism about that, but a

mind as great as that of John Stuart Mill accepted it. In any case, it is a question to

be decided by the evidence, and the evidence is that labor-managed enterprises do

attain higher labor productivity than capitalist-owned (or government-owned)

enterprises in comparable circumstances. Thus the inefficient labor-managed

enterprise may actually produce more than the efficient capitalist enterprise!

(With more output per worker, a smaller work force might produce a larger

output). This is not shown in the diagrams, of course. On the other hand, the actual

labor-managed enterprise may do less well than the ideal one in the long run. Long

run equilibrium comes about through free entry. The ideal labor-managed economy

would have free entry, in that new enterprises may be set up to compete for the

wages above the opportunity cost that we see in Figure 4.In addition to these

practical difficulties, a labor-managed market economy would face the problems of

any market economy: What some see as the tawdry values of the marketplace,

monopoly and externality, and possibly "Keynesian" unemployment. In addition,the unclarity of the concept of social property has been a crucial difficulty.

Yugoslavia, which had labor-managed enterprises for several decades beginning in

the 1950's, never really decided this issue. At the beginning, the government was

the owner as the agent of society. Later on, attempts were made to modify this, but

no-one ever really knew what the rules of the game were.

Context Capitalism is the worlds dominant economic system. Within it, the means

18 | P a g e

CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM


19/31


of production and distribution are owned by individuals: private ownership and

free enterprise are believed to lead to more efficiency, lower prices, better

products and rising prosperity.

Socialism advocates the ownership and control of the means of

production and industry by the community as a whole: the community is

believed to be both more just and more efficient through central planning. In

Marxist theory Socialism represents the stage following capitalism in a state

transforming to communism; for many, however, it is a goal in itself.

Pros Cons

The right to own property is central to

mans existence. Private ownership of

property (including land, businesses

and goods) gives individuals security

and a means to control their own

affairs. Ownership brings responsibility

and allows individuals to plan for the

future so as to provide for themselves

and their families. For example, owning

a house, a business or some land

makes it possible to borrow against

that property so that individuals can

invest for the future. The lack of private

property rights in much of Africa makes

such borrowing and investment

impossible, and is one reason for the

continent's lack of economic growth.

The wealth of the earth belongs to all

men or to none. Under capitalism,

property is concentrated into the hands

of relatively few well-off people, leaving

the many with nothing and at the mercy

of the rich for work, charity, etc. This

leads to gross inequality, exploitation

and misery. Nor is it economically

efficient, as the rich have so much

already they have no incentive to use

their land productively. Socialism seeks

to redistribute wealth and to ensure that

the means of production are at the

service of the whole of society, so that

all can benefit and none will go without.

The drive to succeed as an individual is

the strongest motivating factor a

Many could be motivated to work by a

wish to aid their fellow man. Over time,

19 | P a g e

ARGUMENTS


20/31


human being can feel in their work.

When work is uncoupled from reward,

or when an artificial safety net provides

a high standard of living for those who

dont work hard, society suffers. The

fact that individuals are driven to

succeed is in all our interests.

as the benefits of this better way of life

become obvious, all will. The impulse

to share wealth and material amongst

the community, to support all, leaving

none behind, is one of the purest

mankind can experience. It is not

merely possible it is a demonstration

of the progress of our species to a

finer, more humane state of being.

In capitalism, the market determines

price, including pay - the price of

labour. If some people are paid huge

sums, that is because other people

believe they have unique talents which

are worth paying for. If they fail to

perform, then they will stop being

rewarded so highly. This is all part of a

dynamic capitalist system which values

individuality and rewards ability and

risk-taking.

In any case capitalism isn't a monolithic

system - capitalism can have elements

of control in it. After all, taxation is a

capitalist creation and almost all

capitalists accept a role for state

regulation to prevent market rigging

and to help those in absolute poverty.

Capitalism rewards people in perverse

ways. Some footballers or company

chief executives earn a thousand times

more than nurses. Wealth is

concentrated in the hands of the few.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

The poor are fooled into thinking that

they can gain in capitalism, when really

all their wages do is hold them in place

their savings are swept away in the

first moments of unemployment, a

concept central to capitalism but one

that socialism destroys.

The guiding hand of government is too

strong in a socialist system; it means

that change is slow which means that

innovation is missed. This isnt just pro-

Economies in capitalist systems are

essentially unplanned, so they often

crash, producing depressions that

damage the lives of millions. Socialist

20 | P a g e


21/31


business, it has real effects on the lives

of citizens - people are poorer because

of it. In a capitalist system, economies

are diverse enough that when

problems happen in one sector, others

are often insulated by their differences.

In a socialist system, where everything

is centrally controlled and diversity is

non-existent, when government gets

things wrong, everyone suffers.

Ultimately, socialist systems are so

inefficient and corrupt that labour has

to be forced for the state to continue

functioning (though this may also. be a

logical outcome of thinking less of the

importance of individual freedoms

compared to some abstract communal

good).

The failure of the USSR and othercommand economies shows the

poverty of socialism and the failure of

central planning, as on a smaller scale

does the failure of nationalised

industries in many western countries In

capitalist systems, society is ruled by

the individual. Who would want to live

any other way? In socialist systems,

society is ruled by the state. Why would

one want to live like that?.

economies are planned, which means

that problems can be foreseen and

prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides

with the aim of human happiness in

mind, rather than the glorification or

gratification of a particular individual or

class. To gain this for all rather than

just for some requires an element of

social control the excesses of

capitalism will forever mean that too

many fall by the wayside as the strong

profit, and the weak are left behind.

Critics who point to the failure of the

soviet bloc don't understand that this

was not true socialism, which has

never been properly tried, but a corrupt

version of central planning which

served selfish elites rather than the

good of the people as a whole.Examples such as Britain's National

Health Service, or the European social

model of welfare provision show the

strengths of a socialist approach. In

socialist systems, society is ruled by

the people. Who would want to live any

other way? In capitalist systems,

society is ruled by money. Why would

one want to live like that?

Competition yields better products and

more efficient processes in all fields of

It is false to say that capitalism secures

competition automatically. As everyone

21 | P a g e


22/31


man's activity. Whilst it is true that

monopolies sometimes form, these are

combated by regulatory methods like

monopolies commissions (witness

attempts to break up Microsoft, or

regulators forbidding the merger of

some airlines on competition grounds).

So capitalism actively tries to stop

monopolies. On the other hand,

monopolies are inevitably a part of

every aspect of activity in socialist

systems - the monopoly of the state.

knows, monopolies are often formed

under capitalist systems. Capitalist

monopolies are pernicious - they mean

that individuals profit obscenely as they

can charge exorbitant costs, since

citizens cannot obtain services

anywhere else. On the other hand,

socialist monopolies are benign since

the state has the interests of citizens at

heart, rather than the enrichment of a

particular person.

Socialism cannot protect human rights

because it seeks the good of

Capitalism may use the language of

human rights, but it only really respects

the right of the weak to starve in the

gutter, and the right of the strong to

keep them there. Socialism

understands rights more widely and

fully, and provides for the right to work,

the right to an education, and to health

care free at the point of use. It cannot

be right for a few individuals to block

the progress of all towards these great

goals.

A "mixed" economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. It is a

hodgepodge of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of the

lack of principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of intellectual chaos. It is

22 | P a g e

MIXED


23/31


the attempt to gain the advantages of freedom without government having to

give up its power.

A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce positive

results, because they always force people to act against their own interests.

When a particular policy fails, it is propped up by other regulations in the hopes

that more control will produce better results. Sometimes the results are so

destructive they must either be removed, or the people must be violently

oppressed to make them accept it.

In practice, most economies blend some elements of both market and command

economies in answering the three fundamental economic questions:

What and how much will be produced?

How will it be produced?

For whom will it be produced?

Furthermore, within any economy, the degree of the mix will vary.The economy

of the United States is generally considered to be a free market or capitalist

economic system.

All of these detract from the essential nature of a capitalist economy. However,

most decisions continue to be left to free markets, leaving the United States as a

mixed economy that leans heavily toward the capitalist economic system.

In contrast, the economy of the former Soviet Union is generally considered to be

communist. However, the strict controls of the central planning unit of the country

tended to be more intensely focused on heavy industry, including the defense

and aerospace industries, than on agricultural industries. Farmers often had

significant freedom to produce and sell (orbarter) what they wished.

ORIGINS

23 | P a g e

THE HISTORY MIXEDECONOMY


24/31


The term "mixed economy" arose in the context of political debate in the united

kingdomin the postwar period, although the set of policies later associated with

the term had been advocated from at least the 1930s .Supporters of the mixed

economy, including R.H. Tawney , Anthony Crosland and Andrew Shonfield

were mostly associated with the British Labour Party, although similar views

were expressed by Conservatives including Harold Macmillan

Critics of the British mixed economy, including Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich

von Hayek, argued that what is called a mixed economy is a move toward

socialism and increasing the influence of the state

PHILOSOPY

The term mixed economy was coined to describe economic systems which stray

from the ideals of either the free market, or various planned economies, and

"mix" with elements of each other. As most political-economic ideologies are

defined in an idealized sense, what is described rarely if ever exists in practice.

Most would not consider it unreasonable to label an economy that, while not

being a perfect representation, very closely resembles an ideal by applying the

rubric that denominates that ideal. However, when a system in question diverges

to a significant extent from an idealized economic model orideology, the task

of identifying it can become problematic.

Hence, the term "mixed economy" was coined. As it is unlikely that an economy

will contain a perfectly even mix, mixed economies are usually noted as being

skewed towards either private ownership or public ownership, toward

capitalism orsocialism, or toward a market economyorcommand economy

in varying degrees.

Which economies are mixed?

24 | P a g e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.H._Tawneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.H._Tawneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Croslandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Croslandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Shonfield&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Labour_Partyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Miseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(macroeconomics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_ownershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.H._Tawneyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Croslandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Shonfield&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Labour_Partyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Miseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Hayekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(macroeconomics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_ownershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_economy


25/31


There is not a consensus on which economies are capitalist, socialist, or mixed.

It may be argued that the historical tendency of power holders in all times and

places to limit the activities of market actors combined with the natural

impossibility of monitoring and constraining all market actors has resulted in the

fact that, as we understand a "mixed economy" being a combination of

governmental enterprise and free-enterprise, nearly every economy to develop in

human history meets this definition.

The elements of a mixed economy typically include a variety offreedoms:

to possess means of production (farms, factories, stores, etc.)

to participate in managerial decisions (cooperative and participatory

economics)

to travel (needed to transport all the items in commerce, to make deals in

person, for workers and owners to go to where needed)

to buy (items for personal use, for resale; buy whole enterprises to make the

organization that creates wealth a form of wealth itself)

to sell(same as buy)

to hire (to create organizations that create wealth)

to fire (to maintain organizations that create wealth)

to organize(private enterprise for profit, labor unions, workers' and professional

associations, non-profit groups, religions, etc.)

to communicate(free speech, newspapers, books, advertisements, make deals,

create business partners, create markets)

to protest peacefully (marches, petitions, sue the government, make laws

friendly to profit making and workers alike, remove pointless inefficiencies to

maximize wealth creation)

25 | P a g e

ELEMENTS OF MIXEDECONOMY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_of_employmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protesthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_of_employmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest


26/31


with tax-funded, subsidized, or state-owned factors of production, infrastructure,

and services:

libraries and otherinformation services

roads and othertransportationservices

schools and othereducationservices

hospitals and otherhealthservices

banks and otherfinancialservices

telephone, mail and othercommunication services

electricity and otherenergyservices (eg oil, gas)

water systems for drinking, agriculture, and waste disposal

subsidies to agriculture and other businesses government-granted monopolies to otherwise private businesses

legal assistance

and providing some autonomy over personal finances but including involuntary

spending and investments such as transfer payments and other cash benefits

such as:

welfare for the poor social security for the aged and infirm

government subsidiesto business

mandatory insurance (example: automobile)

and restricted by various laws, regulations:

environmental regulation (example: toxins in land, water, air)

laborregulation including minimum wage laws

consumerregulation (example: product safety)

antitrust laws

intellectual property laws

incorporation laws

protectionism

26 | P a g e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopolieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_paymentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_(financial_aid)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopolieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_paymentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_(financial_aid)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrusthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism


27/31


28/31


MERITS AND DEMERITS OF MIXED SYSTEM

28 | P a g e

MERITS DEMERITS

Provision of the public goodProblems of corruption,cronosim may creep in

economic activities

Economic stability and growth

Social benefits vs. Private benefit

Consumer sovereignty protected

The cooperation between private and public sector will ensure economicstability and growth in the economy

Economic decisions arebeing made to fulfill the social benefits rather than

the private benefits

Though there aresome restrictions imposed by the government, the

consumer still has the right choose the goods they prefer


29/31


Market systems have been predominant in most of the world, but the ideal of a

market system has become politically dominant only late in the century. The timing is

wrong. The centrally planned countries had economic problems from the start, in fields

such as agriculture, and their performance deteriorated steadily in some other areas;

but despite this they were able to keep up economic growth at a more rapid rate than

the capitalist and less developed nations until the collapse of their political systems. It

was this political collapse that caused their transformation, and it came about because

the ruling groups themselves lost confidence in the political system they led. But a more

detailed look at the performance of these countries is not encouraging. They did fail in

many ways, long before their political collapse. But from the point of view of the values

that led socialists to support economic planning, the failures of the Soviet-type

economies were damning. They did not support human services and substitute human

values for the tawdry values of the marketplace. They did not build socialism nor

communism. They simply made themselves the new exploiting class, and, finally, the

new capitalist class. And even that they have done badly, so far. The other practitioners

of economic planning, the fascists and "socialist" emerging nations, did even worse

from the neoclassical point of view. So, while we must admit that some future society

may make an all-around success of economic planning, since it is hard to judge what

may happen hundreds and thousands of years in the future, there is good reason todoubt that people now living will see successful economic planning.The other ideal

systems, market socialism and labor management, have been given less complete

trials. By the same token, they remain somewhat abstract and incomplete in their

conception. If we are to see successful systems of market socialism or labor

management or some combination of both in the future, there are still details to be

29 | P a g e

Public goods is defined as goods and services provided by the government

for communal use. Nobody is probihited for using these goods,regardless of

whether he is taxpayer or not , therefore, in mixed economy government willprovide these good which could be under produced or not produced at all

under capitalism

In the mixed system, the basic problems are answered by both parties,

government and public sectors

SUMMARY


30/31


worked out. How can enterprises be government-owned and the government not "bail

them out" with subsidies if they fail? And if labor-managed enterprises are not to be

government-owned, who shall own them? What can "social property" mean? For those

who want to see a class-less society, those will be difficult problems to solve, requiring a

good deal of thought, trial and error. For those who see no need for a class-less society,

they will seem to be fatal flaws in socialist thinking. Time will tell the answer, and

perhaps some of us will live to see i

NA (2007). "economic systems," The New Encyclopdia Britannica, v. 4, p. 357.

NA (2007). "economic systems," The New Encyclopdia Britannica, v. 4, pp. 357-58.

David W. Conklin (1991), Comparative Economic Systems, Cambridge University Press,

Samuelson, Paul A. (1947, 1983). Foundations of Economic Analysis, Enlarged Edition.

Blaug, Mark (2007). "The Social Sciences: Economics" ( Methods of inference and Testing

theories), The New Encyclopdia Britannica, v. 27, p. 347.

McCullough, B.D. (2007). "Got Replicability". The Journal of Money, Banking and Credit

Archive. Econ Journal Watch 4 (3): 326-337. Retrieved on 2008-06-07.

Kennedy, Peter (2003). A Guide to Econometrics, 5th ed., "21.2 The Ten Commandments

of Applied Econometrics," pp. 390-96 (excerpts).

McCloskey, Deirdre N. and Stephen T. Ziliak (1996). "The Standard Error of Regressions,"

Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1), pp. 97-114.

Coelho, P.R.P.; De Worken-eley Iii, F.; McClure, J.E. (2005). "Decline in Critical

Commentary, 1963-2004". Econ Journal Watch 2 (2): 355-361. Retrieved on 2008-06-10.

Whaples, R. (2006). "The Costs of Critical Commentary in Economics Journals". Econ

Journal Watch 3 (2): 275-282. Retrieved on 2008-06-10.

Smith, Vernon L. (1987), "experimental methods in economics," ii. The New Palgrave: A

Dictionary of Economics, v. 2, pp. 241-42.

Fehr, Ernst, and Urs Fischbacher (2003). "The Nature of Human Altruism," Nature 425,

Sigmund, Karl, Ernst Fehr, and Martin A. Nowak (2002),"The Economics of Fair Play,"

Scientific American, 286(1) January, pp. 82-87.

^ Lazear, Edward P. (2000). "Economic Imperialism". American Economic Review 115 (1):

Further reading

30 | P a g e

REFERENCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Economic_Analysishttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/McCulloughAbstractSeptember2007.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_7http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=B8I5SP69e4kC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&ots=w8xiZdkYWb&sig=_YKfXmJbK4-F3H4zsMl8N-U5BGo#PRA1-PA390,M1http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/Article_189.pdfhttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/CoelhoetalAbstractAugust2005.pdfhttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/CoelhoetalAbstractAugust2005.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_10http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/volone/2006275-282.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_L._Smithhttp://www.scribd.com/word/full/2188440?access_key=key-2ejknqyx744p0e6mcc21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Economic_Analysishttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/McCulloughAbstractSeptember2007.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_7http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=B8I5SP69e4kC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&ots=w8xiZdkYWb&sig=_YKfXmJbK4-F3H4zsMl8N-U5BGo#PRA1-PA390,M1http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/Article_189.pdfhttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/CoelhoetalAbstractAugust2005.pdfhttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/CoelhoetalAbstractAugust2005.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_10http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/volone/2006275-282.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_L._Smithhttp://www.scribd.com/word/full/2188440?access_key=key-2ejknqyx744p0e6mcc21


31/31


Richard Bonney (1995), Economic Systems and State Finance, 680 pp.

David W. Conklin (1991), Comparative Economic Systems, Cambridge University Press,

427

George Sylvester Counts (1970), Bolshevism, Fascism, and Capitalism: An Account of the

Three Economic Systems.

Robert L. Heilbronerand Peter J. Boettke (2007). "Economic Systems". The New

Encyclopdia Britannica, v. 17, pp. 90815.

Harold Glenn Moulton, Financial Organization and the Economic System, 515 pp. Jacques Jacobus Polak (2003),An International Economic System, 179 pp. Frederic L. Pryor (1996), Economic Evolution and Structure: 384 pp.
http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-heilbronerhttp://www.answers.com/topic/robert-heilbroner

Documents

Capitalism is an Economic and Social System in Which Trad1