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.