3 ms·

Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth i

by r_smart 10y ago

Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth inequality that's been going on for much of the 20th century?

dragonwriter 10y ago
Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.) OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.
- r_smart 10y ago
  >and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality Yes, it's just that many people believe the current mix too heavily favors the government, which creates a massive consolidation of power & resources as well as a weak point susceptible to being co-opted or corrupted. This is what people who want the 'slide back into capitalism' are concerned about. Moving more towards state intervention moves us more towards the horrors of systems that are worse than wild west capitalism. >I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress I wasn't accusing you of claiming that. My main point is that by most trends as the power of the US federal govt has grown it has correlated with wealth inequality and stagnation for most of the people in the country. Basically, the greater the mix, the worse things have gotten. As we look towards the ultimate outcome of too much mix, it would seem that if we're not going to move towards something better, then we shouldn't be too quick to write off moving towards a more pure capitalism.

by r_smart 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.) OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.

r_smart 10y ago
>and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality Yes, it's just that many people believe the current mix too heavily favors the government, which creates a massive consolidation of power & resources as well as a weak point susceptible to being co-opted or corrupted. This is what people who want the 'slide back into capitalism' are concerned about. Moving more towards state intervention moves us more towards the horrors of systems that are worse than wild west capitalism. >I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress I wasn't accusing you of claiming that. My main point is that by most trends as the power of the US federal govt has grown it has correlated with wealth inequality and stagnation for most of the people in the country. Basically, the greater the mix, the worse things have gotten. As we look towards the ultimate outcome of too much mix, it would seem that if we're not going to move towards something better, then we shouldn't be too quick to write off moving towards a more pure capitalism.