Talk:Mixed economy

Untitled
New stuff at bottom of page, PLEASE.

Relationship to government
Wow, you COMPLETELY changed the "relationship" sentence. That is not what I said or meant. That probably indicates I was way way too succint. Expanding that section rather than changing my sentence might be the way to go here.4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"While any form of government can choose to begin a process to implement a mixed economy, many believe that it can not be long sustained without causing that government to also implement more and more of the elements of governance typically found in "governments commonly considered "democratic"" <-- can you explain what is meant here? I don't understand. RJII 19:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll certainly TRY to say what I meant. In the process, we will undoubtedly discover a far better content for the relationship section. I had in mind, above all CHINA. Secondarily, I had in mind the progress toward democracy in the western world over the last 300 years, perhaps due in no small measure to the forces of capitalism (not the socialism parts .. I can smell the improvements already !!) Perhaps we are comunicating now? Care to try another stab at improving this article (that is, if we seem to agree and don't need to talk more to avoid a revert war)? 4.250.33.39 19:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually assumed you had China in mind. RJII 19:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying here. Let my isolate what I don't understand: "''implement more and more of the elements of governance typically found in "governments commonly considered "democratic".." RJII 14:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, really great addition to the intro part. Bravo. Second "implement more and more of the elements of governance typically found in governments commonly considered democratic". I can't guess what you aren't getting here. I KNOW you're knowledgeable, so it is not the dictionary definitions of the words you are not getting. And we both know we're talking about China here. So the "elements" would be the democratic elements found in western states like the US but missing in China. Spelling out which those are is outside the scope of this article (as is the EXACT definition of any ism mixed in a mixed economy ... let THAT battle be elsewhere). I don't know what else to say on this regard. 4.250.132.149 03:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "democratic" as in being able to vote? or democratic as in government that represents the will of the people? or are you thinking along the lines of expanding individual rights? RJII 06:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just expanded this section in accord with my above comments. As indicated in the article and above, defining democracy or identifying which elements apply are beyond the scope of an article on economy, not governance. The point of this section is that the freedoms neccesary for the economic miracle of capitalism blend seamlessly into the freedoms that put together are typically called "democracy". As illustrated PERHAPS by the last 300 years or so of the Western democracies and PERHAPS by the future of China.4.250.198.221 15:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like I'm having a problem with the use of the word "democracy." Countries that have democratic elections can be very unfree. Democracy has little to do with freedom per se. I guess that's why I couldn't understand the statement...I don't readily associate democracy with individual freedom beyond anything than the freedom to vote or have the voice of the majority represented in government. I think that at least, it's imprecise language. Maybe "liberalized" is a better word? RJII 15:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You inspired me to go to democracy to see what I could do to be more exact. Turns out liberal democracy is a more exact identification of my intended meaning. Whether you like this better or it merely puts into sharper focus our differences, I can not say. So, what do you think? 4.250.198.254 17:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, much more descriptive term. I like it. RJII 19:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find the change you just made equally satisfactory to what I wrote. Both are more vague than I would would be if I didn't have to be NPOV (e.g. if I was documenting MY beliefs rather than the defendable objective evidence). I write 1+2, you write 2+1. Same difference to me. 4.250.198.254 22:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy
A few MINOR quibbles, if I may:
 * 1) The use of the word "title" seems a tad off to describe a choice of nomenclature rather than a heirarchal designation (eg Captain) or a unique identifier of a work of art (eg book title). I'm sure a better word will occur to you sooner or later. You use the verb "label". Maybe the noun "label"?
 * 2) Use of "ideal" contrasts perfectly with "mixed", but introduction of "model" contrasts not at all since a "mixed economy" is every bit a model as much as an ideal model is a model. I suggest not using "model", or a least let the modeling aspect/concept be a seperate paragraph.
 * 3) " No two economies contain equal mixes" Says who? Why not? What say you to a devil's advocate that says many economies are more fairly labeled as equal in both than labeled as "skewed"? Indeed, if there exists an economy whose experts some claim a skew in one direction and other experts claim that self-same economy is skewed in the other dirrection, is this not evidence that balanced between the two rather than skewed is a more fair label? Isn't denying the existance of middle ground NOT NPOV by definition? 4.250.198.221 17:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having a little fun with the middle does not exist
There is no such thing as a piece of wood one half inch in width. It is always either closer to zero inches in width or one inch in width. Measure close enough and you'll see for yourself. It's always the tinyest bit more than half an inch or less. Hence, no piece of wood is best described as half an inch in width. Also. All eggs ae best described as spherical or cubical. Minimization of shell material theory says eggs should be spherical. But Prevention of rolling down a slight incline theory says eggs should be cubical. So all eggs are skewed either towards minimization of shell or towards incline-rolling-prevetion. Actually balancing conflicting requirements in the design of a real world item or system is not an ideal type and disallowed from the models allowed to be discussed at this neutral point of view site. OK, I'm done having fun. You get the point. 4.250.198.221 17:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well done
Well done, Sir. With a minor change here and there you have taken care of all the points I made. 4.250.198.221 21:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keeping the article on topic
I removed two things from the definition and list of things in the article, which referred to political/civil rights and liberties (freedom of expression for example). These, while of course are a part of a liberal democracy, which are generally some form of a mixed economy, have nothing to do with the definition of a mixed economy. There could quite conceivably be (perhaps have been, though I don't know for sure) an undemocratic, mixed economy.-Curufinwe, March 15th, 2005 I know what you mean. It's important to keep the article on topic. However the ability of people to peacefully get the government to make and alter laws and the ability of the people to communicate are ESSENTIAL to the capitalist AND socilist elements in a mixed economy. Unfortunatly, this is not spelled out in any satisfactory way; and although I've been meaning to do just that, this IS volubteer effort, and I never got around to it. I guess its time to adequately spell out their relevance or leave them deleted. 4.250.168.238 12:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

governance implications
I'm having a problem with determining what exactly the sentences about "governance implications" are saying. "ranging from those with no governance to those with very substanstial governance implications (whose details are beyond the scope of this article). Those economic freedoms that have governance implications are themselves important defining elements of a liberal democracy." What does this mean? RJII 20:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with this the best I can. First, I just praised your additions but deleted two words. I hope and believe you won't have a problem with this. Second "Freedom to buy, sell, and profit limited by significant regulations, taxes, and fees." No kidding that they are "significant". That's the POINT of them in the first place, they exist to cause a DIFFERERCE.


 * Well, there can still be minimal taxes and regulations and it can still properly be capitalism. It's when these interventions by government are really significant that calling the economy "capitalism" becomes questionable. Maybe there's a more descriptive word than significant. RJII


 * It isn't a mixed economy if the regulations are minimal. Further, I don't believe it would be capitalism either, but luckily for that disagreement this isn't an article on capitalism. 4.250.132.86 17:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. Now to the actual question. I don't know what you don't get. Let me assume I'm not communicating successfully (Duhhh !!!).

Ranging .. a range ... a spectrum ... from 1 percent to 100 percent ... from a to b ... from minimum to maximum ...

Governance ... behavior by the entity entrusted with, assigned with, or actually enforcing sovereignty ...

It means that China can't have the benefits of capitalism (communism with Chinese characteristics) without also creating the conditions that will allow it's people to challenge AND ALTER the form of government in China. No one knowns if this will result in a reversal of capitalism or a civil war or democracy in China. I'm hoping for the best. I have a lot of faith in the wisdom of the Chinese, but "predict what or when not both". I'm hopeful. Worse case is a nuclear war with Taiwan and/or India. South Korea, Japan and the US are also at risk if things REALLY get out of hand. I can't believe things will get THAT crazy. The point is the stakes are high, this is real, and wikipedia can play a part in helping sanity win by being clear and truthful. (a minor part tis true, but why stiffle motivation?) 4.250.132.149 03:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the word "implications" was confusing me. I took that word out, and hopefully it still makes sense to you like that. I changed some wording in the paragraph, and hopefully it is consistent with your points. RJII 12:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is PERFECTLY consistant with what I was trying to say, except the "in regard to" part is a partial list (and probably is best as a partial list) so to indicate that I added (for example). It a bit of an awkward sentence at this point, maybe you could help that. Maybe the sentence needs to be a 3 sentence paragraph? 4.250.132.86 17:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)