Why is a Mixed Economy better than a pure capitalist or pure command economy?

I was given this question for a position paper in Social.
I have lots of information but I'm not sure how to organize it in 3 arguments.
Does anyone have any ideas, or know any advantages, other than the obvious ones (ex: you get the best of both private and public enterprise)

Answer:
I like Jamie's framework of thought. If the economy was pure in either capacity, there's very serious consequences to be had. Mixing, while not perfect, insures neither side is in complete control. The same form applies to our republic.
Who says it is?
Public Enterprise - may God help us all. Must be a school run by the government.

Edited to say:
Jamie clearly demonstrates that most people have no idea what capitalism is. Oh, well.
.
Well this is a matter of considerable debate. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that neither a pure capitalist nor a pure command economy will either work, where on the continuum an economy should fall is a matter of personal values. In my opinion, it should be toward the capitalist end of the spectrum---as the idea of free trade is fundamentally better than a command economy.

Pure capitalism, which is a form of anarchy, where EVERY DECISION is left to the market, doesn't work, because there are places where the market purely fails. Natural monopolies (such as public utilities) will arise and create prices which are above their natural competitive point without proper regulation. Free-riders would keep National Defense from being adequately funded. There wouldn't be anybody to enforce contracts or torts or to enforce crimes nor to protect civil liberties. There wouldn't even be anyone to enforce the capitalist system---so even capitalism requires some form of socialism to protect it. In my opinion (but not empirically), Socialized Education is necessary for a fair capitalist economy, to give everyone the tools to compete and be productive.

A pure command economy doesn't work either, the government tries to decide what people need, how much should be made, who should be employed and how for much. This inherently makes an economy inefficient, and reduces productivity. In fact, any socialization beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect capitalism WILL reduce productivity and be inefficient.

However, there are values judgments. Are we willing to give up some productivity to ensure that the unemployed are protected? To what extent should we allow unemployment or higher prices to inflate the minimum wage? Is Health Care a right? These are all subjective decisions.

Some people may say that a system of Socialized Health Care is "better" because it makes sure that everybody has access to a certain minimum standard. An argument could just as easily be made that it is "worse" because it robs people of their money to pay for other people's Health Care, or that Socialized Health Care allocates the good of Health Care in an economically-inefficient manner, usually leading to overuse of the Health Care system, more taxpayer dollars going to healthcare than would be spent in a free market, and/or large bureaucracies to manage it. Who's right? Well, they both are. It's a judgment call.

All Economies are mixed. In the U.S., for example, National Defense, the Postal Service, Police, Fire Departments, Education, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Disability, Subsidized Housing, Agriculture Subsidies, Minimum Wage---are all examples of a socialized economy.
That's too tough for me because I reject the premise that a mixed economy is better than a free enterprise economy. While anything is better than a command economy, what is better done by the government as far as the economy goes. I can't think of a single thing.
it is the crime and the victim that u address here and the better the crime by not having a complete commitment is the reason for the divided mix to be entered in to it, just like when the Romans embraced religion it was a ploy to coerce the people but it was easier to accept this free strategy to take the religion with it cause of the commitment to it , just like it is easier for the conformity to fall and fail because of the acute angle of the behavioral sciences
It isn't. The inherent assumption for your "question" is wrong.
Actually, I have to agree with your other responders. Arguably, a mixed economy is NOT better. The very idea that such a proposal would be assumed without any evidence, and then leave you to find defenses for it...it's pretty sad.

In my opinion the "public-private partnerships" that are at the core of a "mixed" economy are a boondoggle. Mixed economy is nothing more than a way for people to syphon off government money into their corporate bank accounts.

I rather prefer the pure free market economy. While it provides no guarantees of a perfect world, it does prevent the abuse of government power to collect money for corrupt uses. To me, that's a big step in the right direction.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:

More Questions and Answers:
  • how does a decrease in price of a certain good affect the utility-maximizing choices?
  • The Richest Countries in the ASEAN?
  • Who are the most honest people in India?
  • Indicators of lcal commercial economic growth?
  • I need stats about the income of disabled individuals in the u.s?
  • How does the concept of supply differ from the quantity supplied?
  • What is current stage of UK and US economic cycles?
  • what has characterised the international tradeperfomance of(a)first world countries?
  • What are your thoughts on having a "maximum wage" as opposed to a "minimum wage"?