It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What type of economist are you?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 05:59 PM
There are many forms of economics that people believe will benefit society better. Whether you're influenced by politics, an economist, environment, etc. You believe some forums of economics are more beneficial then others. From what I know there are four economic systems.

The three major ones are;
"Free Market Economy or Capitalism: This is an economic system where all of the resources are controlled by private individuals. No country has a pure free market economy, although United States is closest to a pure free market economy.

Planned Economy or Socialism: This is an economy system in which all the resources are controlled by the government and it decides what to produce, for whom to produce, and how to produce. Examples would be the former Soviet Union and and China. Now China is moving from planned economy so it is not a pure planned economy.

Mixed Economy: A combination of socialism and capitalism. Practically all the countries have mixed economy as they have both private and state controlled companies."

I would like to see what everyone's thoughts on economics, the current world economy and see what type of economics will be best for a society.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

This is a very good question you have posed, but I am not surprised that you have not received a response in 3 hours. For many people, economics is an unapproachable subject because it quickly becomes bogged down in technical details. In spite of extensive formal education on the subject, I often feel that way myself.

The information that you have presented on economic systems is valid, but I think that too misses the broader picture. Terms like "capitalism", "socialism", and "mixed economy" are descriptions of market structure rather than the economic system, per se.

I once wrote that economics is the mechanism between living bodies and welfare; that definition is very workable to understand the implications of economics.

Economics is really the story of productive actions. Action, of course, is predicated by energy. Thus, I consider myself an energy-centric economist. I have considered making a thread on the subject, it would certainly dispel many misunderstandings of the world currently.

Unfortunately, this is my actual vocation and I am too tired to elaborate in any depth at this time.

Keep up the provocative threads.


[edit on 5-7-2010 by randolrs1]

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 08:48 PM
To answer your question, I would be traditional given the choice.

Economics is the club that the barbarian hits us with.

Case in point. We pay $189 for an iPhone but the producing nation does not use the dollar as a standard so there is a disproportionate dispersal of wage to the most effort applied.

We have slaves, overseers and plantation owners to this day.

Economy is driven by abuse, fear and control of resources that the powerful are not entitled to.

When the solar flares end our technocratic society I will help survivors survive because I am my brother's keeper and we have a collective responsibility to each other.

Do the right thing.


posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 08:57 PM
I'm a Seatofmypants economist

money buys less and people are not working so its hard to come across.. yep thats a recession

Loads of money dumped into the economy to "improve" it.. yep that will means inflation soon.

Basically I go with my gut .. but I don't see how a fiat currency based system can last for any extended period of time. I see what were going through right now as the end of this system its the death throws of it..

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 09:41 PM
Given those choices, I'd go with a mixed economy.

Planned economies have generally failed in history, as the incentive for each individual to work is low to none, since the reward is identical. China and the USSR had difficulties with planned economies, for example. Now that China is moving towards a mixed/captalistic economy, it is doing a lot better, for instance.

Pure capitalism also fails, as it results in keeping the children of the poor, poor, and the children of the rich, rich. With skill and luck this can be overcome, but in general, the later generations are strongly affected by what their parents did. For instance, in the USA, it's pretty hard to go wrong when you inherit a fortune from your ancestors, whereas it's pretty hard to get anywhere if you are born in the ghetto. Sure, people like Bill Gates made it out of the middle class, but for every one of him, there's a thousand or a million who didn't.

I see a mixed economy as an attempt to compromise between the two extremes. In a country like Canada (where I live) we have things like universal health care, which help those who couldn't afford it in a country like the USA, but you aren't handed everything on a silver platter, so you still have to go out and work if you want to get anywhere. A mixed economy doesn't solve the problem of the uber-rich staying that way, but it does help the poor out more.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:17 PM
Free Market is the way nature does it, and I tend to go with the way nature does things.
Think of it this way. The "hyper" managed economy is like a zoo, or more appropriately, a CIRCUS...
"Look at us, WE (The Elite) feed our animals and take care of them as long as they perform their tricks for us and make US money."

In nature, it is survival of the fittest, but a lot of us don't want to see roving gangs of orangutans taking clubs to innocent people and stealing their stuff, thus, we WANT some protections. After all, we ARE civilized. So, we ASK for government to "protect" us, while we compete and work for goods and services.
The only government we need is an ETHICAL and MORAL force to maintain ORDER.
But, alas, WE don't have that, do we? We have the "managed" economy that guarantees the spoils go where the "managers" want them to, so ECONOMICALLY, we have roving bands of orangutans taking clubs to us and stealing our stuff. They are called the "managers", the circus owners and the zookeepers.

That is your "macroeconomics".

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:48 PM
mixed economy = fascism

Corporations using the power of government to limit competition, limit access to resources, acquire government contracts, and to acquire bailouts and subsidies when they fail.

The most prosperous period of time for the US was during the late 19th century when there was no central bank and we operated under a gold standard of currency.

In 1902, all federal, state, and local government accounted for 7.5% of GDP spending.

Today, the government accounts for over 40% of all spending in this country.

The reason why we are having an economic meltdown is because we have no free markets in this country. The government runs everything.

Click my signature to learn more economics.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:54 PM
By far the mixed economy.

Contrary to popular belief and revisionist history, the government has dabbled in, directed, or greatly influenced economies throughout pretty much all of history.

Even the almighty America has, since its inception, done this. NeoCons just want you to forget that it was the Progressive Era and later, Nixon era GOP that saw us moving in a more free-market direction, and away from the government's protectionist policies, investments in infrastructure and market regulation.

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:02 PM
audit the fed
till that is done in every country that has a privately controlled fed
there are no economies - only variously sized Ponzi schemes

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:47 AM
Well, it all depends...

When I think in pure business terms, we are talking bread-and-butter capitalism, but as any real businessman will tell you, academic economic theory/ideology is a bunch of garbage dreamed up by people who've never done real business. It's basically good for game theory (so that you can choke down the swill that everybody knows is pretence, even though everybody knows everybody else is pretending...).

When I think of an ideal world, of course I can imagine all sorts of better ways of doing things.

I've repeated this before on this board, but....somebody once asked the Dalai Lama whether he thought capitalism or communism would be better. He replied to the effect that either system, or any number of other systems, could produce a viable society if people in control acted selflessly, altrustically, and with human compassion. If these qualities are lacking, then no system will be sufficient. I found it an insightful comment that cut to the heart of the matter: the truly important thing is not going to be ideology, but human behavior, human needs, human psychology, the way humans react to different things, the trust they can or cannot establish among themselves, and so on.

top topics


log in