Talk:Mixed economy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Canada in Examples? US as a mixed economy?

I am just wondering why there is no mention of Canada even though Canada is an excellent example of a Mixed economy whilst the United States is classified as a Market economy, and has many features of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinitsu (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The US and Canada are both good examples of a mixed economy; each is slightly more regulated in some ways and less regulated in other ways. As both are diverse federal systems, even within each, regulation is more in some locations and less in others (New York City versus Montana for example). WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sinitsu. i stumbled across this article and was shocked to see that there was no mention of Canada. I think Canada has one of the most successful Mixed Economic system there is. In my opinion, which shouldn't matter much because I'm certainly no expert on the matter, US is more of a capitalistic economy. 189.164.148.48 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A mixed economy is not an economic system

Dictionary.com, the cited source, suggests that a mixed economy is an "an economy in which there are elements of both public and private enterprise." It does not mention economic system.CounterEconomics (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Googling " "mixed economy" "economic system" " shows many many sources that say it is. You are drawing a distinction that our sources do not make. If you have a high quality source that claims "A mixed economy is not an economic system", that would make a useful addition to the article. We could have a section with your source and others that claim the opposite. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

American System

• Mixed economy is an economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises.
• The American System called for a high tariff, support for internal improvements such as road-building and railroads, and a national banking system.

The two concepts do not seem to overlap. According to waht source is the American System (economics) of Henry Clay a historical example of a mixed economy? Which industries were state-owned under Lincoln? -Will Beback 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"An economic system which is a combination of Market and Command economic systems where market forces control most consumer goods, but government directs industry in need areas." -Mixed Economy has many definition but it's primary factor is that it is neither a laizze faire economy nor socialist economy, but rather in-between these. Look at the Elements...private ownership of the means of production being one, together with protectionism being another, and government subsidy to industry and infrastructure. The American System together with original Mercantilism fit this bill before Socialism was even considered a dominant theory. Dirigisme and Social Market, were later developments that all share the key indicator of Mixed Economy...Government intervention to stimulate, protect, expand, enhance, or do whatever they think is proper to benefit the economy and make it grow. That is what the American System was all about overall, that is what Dirigisme is all about, that is what Social Market is all about, that is what MITI under the Japanese System is all about; that is what investing in infrastructure (internal improvements), national banking to promote production (public credit), and tariffs (protection and promotion of manufacturing within for growth) are all about. --Northmeister 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see there being any connection and I dont see you offering any outside references to support a conneciton. Please stop adding links to American System (economics) to so many unrelated articles. -Will Beback 04:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation is false above. Therefore your conclusions based on the accusations are also false. I never add anything unless I feel it is relevant. You've shown over and over again you don't even understand rudimentary American history. I've seen your interests through your contributions which are never contributions but constant disruption and trolling. They do not indicate any sort of knowledge or off hand interest in American historic or economic subjects until you happen upon my edits. The fact you continue to troll around and stalk my edits, questioning everything I contribute beyond the standard of decency and respect, without AGF indicates you have a personal vendetta intent on harassing this editor. I've asked you to stop in the past. Your official pronouncement of opposition is not good enough because of your conduct and violation of civility and decency numerous times. When a consensus indicates what I add is wrong, then I will listen until then, look it's a robin...spring's comin'. Cheers...old chapper. --Northmeister 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus popping up to support you, and you are ignoring reasonable requests for sources. -Will Beback 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your requests are not reasonable which is the inherent problem here. --Northmeister 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

+

as long as there are public schools, and military(...) it's a mixed system!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You sick Chinese Sickos

USA is not a mixed ecomony, because it doesn't combine socialism with capitalism.

   * "People can own their own businesses, but political leaders make policies concerning these."

Duh, because federal government exists.

   "* The government controls the mail system."

It's more efficent. US Gov controls the stamps too. It's a taxation thing

   * The government controls most of the road networks.

God please, commercial companies would go bankrupted you retards

   * Waste collection and treatment are usually provided as a service by the local government.

Because, americans generate 40% more waste than rest of world, and the whole thing can't be a environmental disaster so government aids

   * The government has a virtual monopoly on the provision of policing.

WTF

   * Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) is a nationalized industry.

WTF

   * The government tells manufacturers what to make if something is in need during war time.

Because thats how we won WWII, retard.

   * The FDA bans certain drugs.

Because the low quality stuff kills. It's not ethical to have lethal drugs that help ppl.

   * The government has created a minimum wage law.

Yeah, because we're not Asia and Africa with sweat factories, idiots

   * The government provides social welfare payments to some citizens.

Because our fucking medical insurance is worse then Canada and Europe and commerical so government aids

   * A sizable part of pre-college education is government-provided.

The US can't afford to put 100% of children in private schools. Department of Education would go bankrupted.

[user:Renegadeviking|Renegadeviking]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A totally free-market economy doesn't exist: it's a theoretical construct that would work if there weren't any people in it. The list illustrates how the U.S. economy is not such a 'perfect free market economy'. The U.S. does combine socialism with capitalism, most blatantly with agricultural subsidies. Or, point by point:

1. Nothing forces the government to make any decisions about businesses.
2. There are plenty of examples of private mail and transport services.
3. Why couldn't you charge a fee for using a road? Theoretically it's possible, in an ideal free-market economy. If there aren't any people in it.
4. Waste collection can be run as a private corporation.
5. Policing - it's a security service.
6. Amtrak is really interesting: nothing forces the government to run a rail network but in the U.S., it does.
7. Again, there's no war in the ideal model.
8. FDA doesn't have to ban anything. The government could let the free market decide if a product is safe.
9. The minimum wage law is a prime example of American socialism in action.
10. Social welfare is socialistic. The concept of state-provided social security has existed for a very short while, although charity is older.
11. There's nothing in education that says it has to be government-provided.

--Vuo 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A totally free-market economy doesn't exist

Anarcho-Capitalism? Fephisto 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The "mixed economy" concept is on the one hand a theoretical construct that lies between one extreme of enFORCEd economic compliance and another extreme of a radical lack of FORCE regarding economic choices; and on the other hand a practical construct that divides actual economies into one extreme or the other or someplace in the middle. WAS 4.250 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

public schools, public roads, state military ->mixed system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Long quotes tacked on at end

I deleted a set of long quotations that were tacked on to the end of the article, and moved the citations up to further reading.[1] Another editor has reverted that edit. Could someone please explain why that material is there? I don't recall seeing any other article with a similar quote farm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the inline citations you will see that some of them refer to the books listed after the inline citations. Further, it is common in disputed articles to provide exact quotes to support specific claims in the articles so that readers who do not have the books can verify for themselves that the claims are supported and not taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented. An example of the kind of source rot that you get with "anyone can edit" is found in the fact that someone has added a "fact" tag to a claim that is in fact backed up by one of the quotes you deleted (see if you can spot it). WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

These excerpts don't seem to be linked to any specific text in the article. Can you please fix that? I don't see how link rot applies to published books. I don't object to short excerpts that support specific assertions, but general quotations that don't serve any purpose don't belong in articles. Maybe Wikiquote would be a better place for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll fix it so they are inline cites. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. If after reading the paragraph and then the quotes, you wish to trim them down, feel free. It is a bit overkill. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Yes, it is overkill. One or two good sources should be sufficient for an undisputed assertion. But at least it makes more sense from an article citation point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Way section too long

The Third Way section currently copies too much of the material present in the Third Way (centrism) article, such as country-specific information and the criticisms. The "Third Way" is a political ideology or orientation that originated in the 1980s or 1990s - making it far newer than any mixed economy. A mixed economy does not necessarily have to follow Third Way ideas, and it is misleading to give the Third Way such extensive coverage in an article with a topic as broad as the mixed economy. -- Phyrros (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The third way section was created as a merger of two articles. Apparently someone has seen fit to recreate the merged article. "The term itself extends back at least a century, to when Pope Pius XI called for a Third Way between Socialism and Capitalism at the end of the 1800s" but the idea so named is even older. Someone coming up with a new name for an old idea does not make it a new idea. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, it does not make it a new idea, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a wiki article about a new political term - even if the term does refer to an old idea. All the information currently presented in the Third Way section of this article (and duplicated in the Third Way article) refers to the new use of the term since the 1980s, as opposed to the history of the older idea. "Third Way" is a political slogan; "mixed economy" is not. By putting the two together we give the misleading impression that the particular kinds of mixed economies promoted by Bill Clinton or Tony Blair are THE definitive model of a mixed economy. That is simply not true. They should not be given undue weight just because they use the term "Third Way" more than anyone else. -- Phyrros (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the "Third Way" content. It may be useful to speak of some kind of a third way in this article, but the content talked about a specific centrist political trend originating in the 1980s rather than centrism in general. -- Phyrros (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be completely scrapped

Mixed economies refer to an array of economies. There's mixed capitalism which is the most common. Where free market and command capitalism are present. This entry seem to only have mix of socialism and capitalism which is virtually exclusive to oil rich Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia. So this entry is extremely misleading and anyone with an economics degree such as myself finds this to be very ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why you should use your knowledge of the topic to improve the article, man. On Wikipedia, articles are only as good as the most topic-knowledgeable person who last edited. To prevent "misleadership" (pardon my nonce word), it takes people like yourself. Have at it! — ¾-10 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: In fact, here's a question for you: see Talk:Free market#The lede should mention how various people's definitions of these terms (both economists' and laypeople's) handle regulation of the technical-specification type. I am not an economist, so I am not clear on what label the dismal science would put on an economy that's entirely free market as far as trade goes, but not devoid of technical regulatory requirements. — ¾-10 22:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original statement. ALL economies have some type of mixed economies. In socialist dictatorships (Cuba, North Korea), there are private actors. As well as in United States, Japan or Germany, regarded as "capitalist" countries, there is plenty of involvement from the public sector. This is one of the most strange articles I have ever seen in Wikipedia. --C9900 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this article is good yet, but you seem to be mistakenly implying that Wikipedia invented the term and/or the concept. If you look at the references, it's clear that Wikipedia is only writing an article about a concept that exists out there in the world. If you think the term and/or concept is flawed, that's fine, but that's an independent axis from whether this article is crap or not. See what I mean? Analogously, let's say you hate the idea of ghosts, and you think they don't exist. Wikipedia could still have an article about ghosts. Granted, it would have to present ghosts as a matter of belief rather than fact. But the article wouldn't be crap as a consequence of the concept being crap in your view. I would suggest that if you feel like this Wikipedia article gives too much implicit credence to the concept, then you should introduce the critique side of things to the article. That would be fine; go for it! — ¾-10 22:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition

From the respected NPOV source Bartleby "A mixed economy is "An economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, mixing some individual ownership and regulation. Some capitalist countries, France, for example, employ what is often called state capitalism. In this form of a mixed economy, the state becomes a major shareholder in private enterprises. An alternative, employed in Great Britain (more in the past than now), is for the state to own some industries while leaving others in private hands."

Please don't change the existing "capitalism and socialism" definition. It is standard. Feel free to add ANOTHER definition backed up by a STANDARD NPOV SOURCE. 4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that's standard? Here are various definitions of mixed economy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:mixed+economy

(user name missing)

That provides the following definitions of "mixed economy" with their source (link):

1. An economic system that combines private and state enterprises

2. An economy that allocates resources through a mixture of public (governmental) and private decision making

3. An economy in which ownership of some key elements in the financial and industrial sectors resides in the state and other key elements are in private hands

4. A mixed economy is one with some public influence over the workings of free markets. There may also be some public ownership mixed in with private property.

5. An economy that allocates resources through a mixture of public (governmental) and private decision making

6. A market economy in which the government plays a very large role

7. One with both private and public sectors.

8. A mixed economy is one with some public influence over the workings of free markets. There may also be some public ownership mixed in with private property. A market-based economic system under which government plays an important role, including the regulation of markets, where most economic decision are made.

9. An economic system that combines elements of a market economy (capitalism) with elements of a command economy (socialism).

10. An economy that combines elements of the traditional, market, and command economic models.

11. The who, what, and how questions are answered through a mixture of traditional, command, and market economies

12. An economy that uses both market signals and government directives to allocate goods and resources.

Do you see one or more you feel belong in the article? If so, put it there with the reference (source, link). They all strike me as valid, but not necessarily useful additions. But then that's just me. 4.250.33.39 20:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to put my name on that. I'm not dead set against the definition as it stands, but I see some problem with the use of the word "socialism" because not all socialist ideologies involve a government. One of the definitions above refers to a "command economy" That might be better. "Statism" would be the best in my opinion. RJII 20:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a clue to what you mean when you say "not all socialist ideologies involve a government", but adding "command economy" is an excellent suggestion and I have done so. Maybe I don't WANT to have a clue. Please don't tell me you want to sell the never-never land utopia of anarchism on the "mixed economy" article. Really. DON'T TELL ME. 4.250.168.62 03:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Communism, a type of socialism, can theoretically exist without a state. Of course there are practical problems. I'm not trying to sell any such thing. I'd just like the article to be clear that what we're talking about is the difference between a free market situation (capitalism) and a situation where there is a central authority overriding what would otherwise be free market decisions. RJII 14:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Castles in the air have fewer "practical problems" than a society of humans without ANYBODY using force. Luckily, that's not an issue for THIS article! 4.250.132.149 03:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First World mixed economies are not capitalist and socialist. They are free market and command. My economics degree and I find this article to be very ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Why don't you change it? My economics degrees also find the wiki articles on socialism, capitalism, and mixed economies to be very ignorant. As Frank Stilwell puts it, definitions like these are so theoretical and restrictive that you cannot find a socialism or capitalism that actually exists. In reality, what most people (and most good economists) refer to as socialism and capitalism ARE mixed economies! And a mixed economy doesn't have elements of socialism and capitalism, it has elements of a planned economy (or command economy) and elements of a free market system (or laissez faire system). Can we change this so that it makes sense and refers to things that actually exist? -Nelbev (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Map?

A map showing the different degrees of government intervention in the economy in different countries would be helpful. There are a few possibilities for data sources, like Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP (which seems incomplete) or the Index of Economic Freedom for which we have File:2012 World Map of the Index of Economic Freedom.PNG (and which may be too broad). Or maybe there's a data source that specifically looks at planned vs. privately determined? -- Beland (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

U.S.A. as example of mixed economy?

Hi, (first sorry about my English) in the article I am surprised that an example of mixed economy is the American economy, sorry, but USA as always been cited as the example of the capitalist system (specially, from USA itself), it always praises privatisations, and any word in favour of regularisation of the market, intervention (or something "worse" nationalisation) and you will be a "communist". The reasons argued aren't entirely true: The U.S. is considered a mixed economy. Some examples of this include:

• Public and private schools are available for children.
• All Americans over the age of 65 are eligible for Medicare, a public health insurance option.

Everyone knows if you want a good/medium education in USA you have to go to private schools, and a lot of people cant afford going to a good university. In the western Europe is where the school system and the good universities tend to be public and really cheap if not free.

The "public" health insurance in USA is not a good example neither, even with the last health reform, inst anything that we already don't have in Europe.

I think that the Nordic countries could be a good example of mixed economies, with a regulated free market, strong employment rules, and some big national enterprises partly nationalised (like oil industry in Norway, or energy and railways systems in Sweden, Denmark).

If not, Germany or Netherlands can be also good examples that can give the people a real idea of what a mixed economy is. --Living001 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a WP:BOLD delete. If there is to be a section devoted to one example of a mixed economy it cannot surely be the U.S. which has the least government involvement of any major economy. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the USA is a bad example of a mixed economy. A better example would be, for example, Sweden, Canada or Germany. It is misleading people to think that the USA is a good example of a mixed economy when it is actually one of the worst. The USA is a terrible example and should be removed from this article. This is not to mention the fact that none of the statements have any sources cited. Vinniejhall (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I completely agree with you. I think the USA section must be removed, if someone wants, another country like Sweden, Denmark, Holland or Germany can be added --Living001 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

usa is a mixed economy as well - it is just a different mix 91.89.243.218 (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove unsourced "Elements of a Mixed Economy"?

The section entitled "Elements of a Mixed Economy" has been flagged for being entirely unsourced since 2012 and should be removed. While much of the content in the list is factual, the list basically describes the American or West European capitalist economic models and does not fully encompass all the relevant definitions of a "mixed economy" and should be removed from the article. Specifically, the vast majority of the content listed is compatible with "standard" capitalist market economies, and some of the content has little to do with economics (such as freedom of speech, communication, protest, etc.). -Battlecry 05:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear from your statement "Specifically, the vast majority of the content listed is compatible with "standard" capitalist market economies" that you have very little knowledge of economic history. Many of content items listed were not in the definition of Capitalism in the early 1800's. They were ideas that were advanced by, for a lack of a better term, Socialist political science thinkers trying to resolve the economic problems that Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution created in their countries. Since all the countries you listed adopted the Socialist ideas, they are considered to have a Mixed Economic System, not a Capitalist economic system To acquire this knowledge you have to know that the Economics as a specific filed of study at college and universities only occurred in the early 1900's. Prior to then Economics study was originally part of the Political Science Departments in colleges and universities. Since I was both a Political Science major and Economics major I have a deeper understanding of the origins and thoughts regarding the beginnings of Economics and the definitions of Capitalism. I also know from teaching economics that early beginnings of Economic thought is not covered in Economics courses. It was covered in my History of Political Thought class and we discussed the early writers and the thoughts of the individuals that shaped the ideas of Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. My class was taught by a professor from Austria who had a PhD in History of Political Thought from a European University and graduated in the early 1930's. Since all of the Political and Economic thoughts regarding Capitalism, Socialism and Communism were being develop by European writers and political scientists prior to the early 1900's and my professor spent the first 30 years of his life in Europe and saw first hand the implementation of many of the Socialist concepts in Europe, I am very confident that Dr. Wolfe had an excellent understanding of the original concepts of Capitalism, Socialism and Communism as they were developing in the 1800's and implemented into the European countries that you refer to as Capitalist countries. Akdlc (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Elements of a Mixed Economy" SHOULD BE RETAINED. It is an excellent list of combination of Capitalism and the Socialist concepts that were adopted by countries to improve the quality of life and standard of living for all citizens of a country. A Mixed Economic system incorporates the best of the Political and Economic thought regarding Socialism and Capitalism of the last 200 years and the Mixed Economic systems with democratically elected representatives are the most prosperous and have the highest standard of living. Akdlc (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Freedoms as well as restrictions

Yes

This article is really skewed toward the socialism/central-planning side in listing the characteristics of mixed economies. The other side of the mix needs to be listed as well. RJII 16:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Implemented. (Could use a few added words in freedoms section, tho) 4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

clarity vs. redundancy

"allows personal autonomy over spending and investments, though not absolute, due to the existence of transfer payments and other cash benefits such as" is true but redundant.

Keep in mind the sentence is

"The elements of a mixed economy typically include a variety of freedoms (examples)

with tax-funded or subsidized services and infrastructure (examples)

and providing autonomy over personal finances as well as transfer payments and other cash benefits such as:(examples)

but restricted by various laws, regulations (examples)

and taxes and fees written or enforced with manipulation of the economy in mind."

So any change should not be redundant given the WHOLE context. That said, clarity without reading EVERYTHING is also important. Perhaps a paragraph or a seperate section or a sentence added to the beginning would let you emphasis something I see as already duly noted in the article.4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'm starting to think this article needs some writing instead of merely this listing stuff. RJII 19:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Give it a try. How about ADDING a section after "relationship", copy the run on sentence containing listed examples and EXPERIMENT transformating it into sentences in paragraphs? Maybe it becomes something in ADDITION to the lists. Maybe it becomes something TO REPLACE the lists. We'll never know until it exists. Process is the key. Cheers and good luck.4.250.33.39 19:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photo

It would be nice if we could get a photo that depicts a mixed economy. For example, a photo that showed both state owned industry and private such as one of the U.S. Post office with a Burger King next door. RJII 20:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Such a photo ADDED to the existing photo would be PERFECT. A dam, an electric plant, a highway, hell... most any building in Washington,DC... and a farm, a K-mart, how about the bull outside the New York stock Exchange??? 4.250.132.149 02:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)