quote:The social market economy steeres a middle path between socialism and liberalism and aimes at maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, public welfare and public services by using state intervention.
The state intervention in offering the services makes it, to me at least, the difference between normal flu and the flu of 1918, merely a matter of degree.
I would additionally offer that while that theory may have attempted the bold faced, they currently have high unemployment and low growth. Inflation is admissably low. So much for theory.
IP: Logged |
See, flydye, that is where you are wrong. Socialism requires State ownership of factories social market economy requires private ownership. One is Marx inspired the other is Smith inspired. As the difference between Marx and Smith is the defining difference in moder economics, I would say they are very different indeed.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I care less about the ownership of factories in that Social Market Economy "allows" the company to own the factory...and then doesn't allow them to choose their healthcare, fire their employees, mandates vacations, sick days, coffee breaks etc. no matter how badly it impinges on it's ability to survive.
So, who really controls the factories? Social Market theory seems worse then Socialism in some regards in that under Socialism, a government hack in on the hook for the failure. Under the other system, all the blame is on the company, no matter how intrusive the government regulation.
Edited to add: I grant the difference. The nasty effects are what I care about, not the devil in the details.