The
complete bashing of anything associated with socialist ideas doesn't seem
entirely rational. Of course some sectors of the economy must be free, but
there still must be regulation to some extent in some economic sectors.
Planning, in many cases, by a central power doesn't always allocate resources
the most efficiently, but this brings into mind how the health care system in
the United States today is a disaster. Many people seem to be afraid of the
government having more control of healthcare, and I believe it's because many
people associate the government being in control of healthcare as socialism. If
socialism is as ineffective as portrayed by the some, then why do we spend a
much larger charge of our resources on healthcare when we have just about the
lowest quality of healthcare compared to other developed nations? Does this
mean private companies fail at providing quality healthcare at affordable
prices?
If free
markets should be better for people than socialism or any form of planned
economies then it seems nonsensical that many people do not have access to
quality healthcare, so maybe some sectors of the economy require planning while
others don't. Also, if there were no socialistic ideas implemented in the
United States then we wouldn't have food stamps, welfare, or any other aid
helping the poor. We cannot stop caring about the poor, ill, or anyone who
cannot provide for themselves, and if we were in their position we would have
wanted the same care. This chapter showed how America and Britain had economic
systems with both right and left wing policies implemented in the economy around
the days of World War 2, so a mixed economy seems to have many pros over an
economy with only right or left wing policies, but this is subject to much
debate.
Also,
the chapter did a great job addressing what socialism is and the definition of
socialism is very important in distinguishing it from communism. Socialism and
communism are related, but NOT synonyms by any means. Socialism is a theory
advocating that the community must own or regulate the means of production,
distribution, and exchange. On the other hand, communism advocates the idea
that all property must be publicly owned and each person works and is paid
according to their needs and abilities. I believe that communism is almost
impossible to achieve or hasn't been achieved, for many reasons I do not wish
to discuss here, while socialism may be more prevalent than we may realize. The
chapter helped understand and see how today and in the past the government has
made our economy fairly socialistic or planned, but this is not bad by any
means it's just a fact of today's reality. Also, my last statement may be fiercely
contested by some. Also, I may be wrong on many of my opinions and anybody
should take into consideration that I am only a student and not an economist,
so some of what I say may be inherently flawed. This is simply what my ideas
were after reading the chapter and don't necessarily reflect my ideology in its
entirety because there is much I have left to learn, but I try to remain
balanced.
No comments:
Post a Comment