Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the role of government in an economy
Role of the government in the economy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is the role of government in an economy
Living in a centrally planned or command economy would be a strange experience indeed, as I have lived in a nation that employs a free market economic status for all of my life. It would take quite some time for me to become accustomed to having most if not all aspects of my economic life wholly presided over by the government. Though it is true that most financial decisions that pertain to me are still made by my parents, I like to think that living in a free market economy benefits me even as a young person, and I would regret having to relinquish such benefits. Thus, I can easily see how there would be more disadvantages to a command economy than advantages, especially for a person who values freedom. I can, however, notice that there are certain aspects of life in a command economy that I may like. In consideration of such things, if I lived in a centrally planned or command economy, one of the things that I would like would be the fact that I could be assured of having a job and a salary so long as I am capable of work. I would like having the security of knowing that I would not have to worry with the possibility of not having the money necessary for living; that is, at least until the government decides that I am expendable. Most especially in the current world, occupations can prove difficult to obtain and maintain, even for those who have a background of experience and education that makes them more qualified than others for a particular job. It is a worry of mine and my siblings that we will not be able to procure dependable jobs after we have finished our college education, so it would be reassuring to know that I would be mostly guaranteed of a job, albeit one that is specified and proctored by the government. I have k...
... middle of paper ...
...ne; it is welded into my personality that I need to have some power and authority in order to be content. I would, therefore, resent being regarded as economically equal to others in all situations, because that would mean that regardless of how hard I worked and how successful I became at my job, I would be, in the eyes of the government, equal to all others, even those who worked at the least of their capacities and showed no resolve whatsoever to make something greater of themselves. Therefore, after studying what it means to live in a command economy, I have decided that life spent as a citizen in a centrally planned economy would be predominantly disadvantageous, with the sparse sprinkling of advantages few and distant and clouded from being fully beneficial by the supremacy of a government that exercises control even into the personal lives of each individual.
In Scott Russell Sanders’, “The Common Life”, he puts forward the conflict between an individual and society. Sanders recognizes the importance of individual activities, or as he said “seasons of withdrawal from responsibility”. On the contrary, Sanders declares that this surplus in no responsibility can steer to “a career of being unaccountable”. Sanders’ declarations are well founded when the proof is inspected.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." (Robert Frost) In today's world there is no tolerance for the individual thinker. It is not acceptable to modify or bend the rules of society. Society is civilized, and to be civilized there must be rules, regulations and policies that prevent. Individuality leads to a mess of chaos. To prevent disorder, institutions in society keep these rules strongly enforced. Man creates these institutions in order to provide convenience and stability in everyday life. Then instead of man running these institutions, the institutions begin to reverse the role of power and the institutions are running man. He is rendered helpless to what he has created. With the institution in power it has become smarter and stronger than man, working to destroy individuality with the invisible machine running smoothly. Positions of power and authority are given to some. The power changes those who it into an unfeeling, ruthless, cold machine. Also they become part of the institution, forgetting the real purpose of their jobs. Institutions force individuals to bend and mold the standard and give up freedom and individuality. Some individuals are unable to conform when their will to remain creative and self-reliant is too strong; they fight against the current that society and its institutions create. Beating the system is another thing; those who attempt to beat the system are often referred to as romantics because they do not focus on the reality of situations. The system cannot be beat. If one official of an intuition is taken down there will be a many more waiting i...
The lawyer and scholar believed that there should be one universal government ruling the people, this government would be a led by a mix of all three classes. He states how a monarchy would be the ideal rule, but is extremely unrealistic as all humans reason equally. By instating a mixed form of government, people would feel more of a connection with the laws and more of a personal responsibility to follow them if they had a part in creating them. Additionally, all people would be seen as equal before the law as all have equal capabilities and through effort, a common good can be achieved; the only thing differentiating humans is their variety of gifts, besides this, there is no variation. A person’s economic status by no means defines their ability to lead, by all groups participating in government, there are no idle citizens that are not a part of the
The old idea that we were for a country that barely could stay above the water is inappropriate for society today. He proves this by naming numerous issues like the conventional common wisdom, the American mood, inequality and the position of poverty, then contrasting the difference between the old ideas and the ones that are actually going on today. It is considered to be the model of what society’s perceptions of reality are, that we have based our society on. These views are extremely conservative, people have become so reliant on these they are reluctant to change them.
A person can choose to work to better their station in life. Through education and job advancement along with desire, people are no longer subjected to a social class they can’t escape. A person’s place in this world can now be set by them when they desire more. There are no longer oppressive laws forbidding the change in status growth. State sponsored educations provided to all citizens give everyone the opportunity to grow and shape their future. Higher education is more accessible than any other period giving people the knowledge and skills to grow into better paying jobs and to find better markets for their skills.
“ We aspire not to equality but to domination. The country of a foreign race must become once again a country of serfs, of agricultural laborers, or industrial workers. It is not a question of eliminating the inequalities among men but of widening them and making them into law.”
Hultberg, Nelson. "Is Individualism Dead? | Nelson Hultberg." FEE. Foundation for Economic Education, 01 June 1994. Web.
...equality. While it is a nice notion that there should be a society free of jealousy, war, and inequality, it is not accomplished by a government imposing laws which regulates its citizens’ success (even if that law if from the people). This type of social structure, where everyone is treated equally discourages work because minimal effort will reap the same results. Rather, the ideal government is a limited one; one where commerce and capitalism is encouraged.
...should either live the life of those that they rule, as an equal, or as a superior allow the necessary input of those whom they rule, to decide the best course of action, as is done in a democracy.
Capitalism, by definition is known as “a way of organizing an economy so hat the things that are used to make and transport products are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government”(Marxism). To some, this is the correct way of handling the economic situation in one’s country. But to others, such as Karl Marx and Adam Smith, there are other systems that would be more adequate. Is capitalism really the best way to go? What are the other options that could be better than capitalism? We must see which would be the best for society. If one were to negatively affect it, then it is not an option that should be taken. So, we must see the pros and cons for capitalism and how it can affect the economy and our society.
...s the Other, as a class of lazy bums, as a hindrance to our country. However, the power of the lower class is far greater than any power on this earth. For if we embrace and nurture this power, our country would grow like never seen before, the obstacles that threaten our livelihood would cease to exist, and our society would be represented as a model for all other nations to follow. But due to the current crisis of our country's financial, political, and social foundations, being the other in our civilization would rarely lead to achieving the American Dream. If our society was only cultivated to meet the standards of the American Dream, only then will the poor meet the standards of the rich, only then will our country defeat the long historical battle against poverty, and only then will a child born in the Bronx end up living on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
“There are some who lack confidence in the integrity and capacity of the people to govern themselves. To all who entertain such fears I will most respectfully say that I entertain none… If man is not capable, and it not to be trusted with the government of himself, is he to be trusted with the government of others… Who, then, will govern? The answer must be, man – for we have no angels in the shape of men, as yet, who are willing to take charge...
...alist society, because it necessitates that a few people hold the positions at the top of the ladder and control the resources of the country while the majority people are increasingly exploited for their labor power. I would opt against some other economic society, not knowing whether or not it would satisfy the conditions of providing the best opportunity for the lest in my society. After all, America was founded on being the best solution to a free society. However, Capitalism would still afford me the best opportunity to advance my station in life no matter what position I may find myself slotted. If I select, as Rawls suggest that I should, choosing Capitalism gives the best opportunity for the worst case in our society to advance.
If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident that command economies tend to oppress their citizens. Therefore, socialism, which allows for basic needs to be met and personal freedoms to be upheld, is the best economic system for all of a country’s citizens. Market economies, as a whole, inherently and inevitably lead to poverty and a large class disparity. In a capitalist society, the ones who supply labor, the ones who work the hardest, are the ones who are paid the least. The owners, who are already rich, receive most of the profit and accumulate large masses of wealth.
There are some arguments, having a faint measure of plausibility, that have served politicians, charlatans and assorted do-gooders for well for over a century in their quest for control. One of those arguments is: capitalism primarily benefits the rich and not the common man. That vision prompts declarations such as: Congressman Richard Gephart's assertion that high income earners are "winners" in "the lottery of life." Then there's, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, who says high income earners the "fortunate fifth." These nonsensical visions lead to calls for those who've been "blessed" to "give back" either voluntarily or coercively through the tax code.