Socialism is to the economy as ...

Originally posted by telerion
What is exactly wrong with trying to align incentives such that they encourage people to try hard and take risks for the good of the us all?

Do you want me to list a few large multinationals currently residing in Scandinavia/Holland?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
By and large, it is an appropriate generalization to state that most government budget reflect a share of politics that pushes spending above the levels that would optomize growth from savings and investments. Governments spend a lot of money in non-investments...
So let's start with less government size and spending than those present in most countr ...[text shortened]... ndred years remains a better answer than 50, but then what? Or you argue that therefore what?

First of all, Great Britain was a global hegemony in the late 18th century until maybe 1900 or maybe even until WWI. They followed a very liberal economic agenda, which basically all weestern countries and their trade partners were part of. So it's not only GB and the US that benefitet from that period of free markets and trade. Most countries followed the same policy. Before that there were lots of wars and countries generally followed a mercantilistic protectionistic beggar-thy-neighbor policy. The same thing happened in the interwar years culminating in the Smoot-Hawley act. Capitalist policies haven't been as predominant in the last 200 years as you claim.

Do you consider the Scandinavian countries as socialist? We've only had the welfare state since the 1960's, which is the whole basis for our way of life, and it is discussed, of course, constantly. There's waste in government bureaucracy, sure, but there's waste in the private sector too. I still consider the Scadinavian countries as capitalistic. But then again it might be a difference in definitions.

You keep mentioning long term growth. Both in this and other threads. What is the largest/most important contributor to growth in your opinion?

Originally posted by Lundos
First of all, Great Britain was a global hegemony in the late 18th century until maybe 1900 or maybe even until WWI. They followed a very liberal economic agenda, which basically all weestern countries and their trade partners were part of. So it's not only GB and the US that benefitet from that period of free markets and trade. Most countries followed the sa ...[text shortened]... d other threads. What is the largest/most important contributor to growth in your opinion?

Global hegemony does not appear to be related, but you next mentioned liberal economic agenda. Compared to who and when? Wouldn't you agree that the industrial revolution and laissez faire economic policies were prominent in Great Britain and the United States first and before other Western European countries?

If you say most countries had some protectionist trade policies, then it doesn't sound like a comparison between countries is being made at all to call one country more or less capitalist in relative terms. After all, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), the US and Great Britain developed rail roads and steam transportation early, had captains of industries (also called robber barrons) such as vanderbilt, carnegie, etc creating massive wealth for the nation and getting rewarded for it... industrialization and laissez faire capitalism went hand in hand.

Scandinavian countries are probably best considered mixed economies with strong socialist influences.

There is waste everywhere, but widely and typically there is more waste in the public sector, more deadweight loss, more inefficiency, and less incentives in the public sectors.

In my opinion, the most important contributor to growth (but not he only one) is the successful investment in and realization of new technological and procedural innovations that improve the quality of life (examples include bell's telephone, wright brothers' airplane, franklin's lightbulb, ford's model t, gate's windows, job's apple, google, ebay, etc)