You could make arguments for any of these but I think history has show us pretty clearly that mixed types that lean heavily toward capitalism are Superior at creating wealth for its people.

By the way this is a bit of a trick because all economic systems are mixed. For example, in America, a “capitalist country” our education system is pure socialism–That’s why it doesn’t work like it should. So you might come to the conclusion that if we made a country that were pure capitalism that it would be even more wealthy.This would be true if you could get private parties to do all the things that governments typically do. Many typically government things are extremely risky investments or investments that would be very difficult to sell. Examples are: road systems, sometimes power plants in new countries, and Education. Education could be capitalized with a couture system though and these systems have proven to be far superior to the current socialized education that is most popular among teachers unions and the ignorant public that they hope to keep. Now income the Japanese.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

They know in order to get your business they have to build better and or more appealing cars. For me, capitalism is the best economic system, because capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competition profit-seeking private persons and where investments, distribution, income production and pricing of goods are predominantly determined through the operation of a free marked where anyone can participate in supply and demand. So if our only purpose was to have a better economy, Capitalism is the only way to go.In the long run, the economic system which renders the greatest growth will tend to dominate. Socialists like to believe that free-market economic growth will tend to crystallize a power structure and increase inequality. But as the size of the economy has no clearly defined boundary (it can go on forever), inequality can only go as far as 100%.

With 100% meaning that there is only one owner for all capital, 0% meaning that there is a perfectly uniform distribution of wealth Inequality won’t increase indefinitely.At best, it can vary, but it will settle at some value (which won’t be in the vicinity of 0, neither that of 100%). Quite simply, the wealthiest people around are those in the business of mass consumption. You can’t be a very large business unless you cater for the masses.

So it’s absurd to say the masses will be “skinned” and left with a decreasing share of wealth, when these people are precisely the ones marketers must target to enter and remain in business. A business must please its customers to be viable.Most people understand that employees will compete for jobs and customers will compete to get the products they want. But the other side of the equation is frequently ignored: those businesses compete for customers and employees. They understand the idea of a price, but can’t associate this concept with wages. They have an understanding of supply and demand, but frequently fail to apply this knowledge to labor relations and consumer protection. I blame the public school system and the media for most of this, but I also associate responsibility of action even to those ignorant of their effects.

That is, not knowing is not an excuse. First off, capitalism is not only the best economic statement, but I will be so bold as to say it is the ONLY economic system, as all other systems can be described as varying degrees of denying capitalism. Begin flame war Capitalism is superior to all other economic systems two reasons: it’s cheap, and it’s fair. First off, it distributes wealth efficiently. That is, it’s cheap. All ideas are not treated equally–some are work better than others.Good business decisions will be rewarded, bad business decisions will be punished–not by a court or a judge or a president or a government or even a really big group like voters or consumers or whoever–but by everyone: the people selling, the people buying, the people shipping all play a hand in deciding reward and costs.

Not an equal hand. A fair hand. The best economic system for the Philippines is its current system.

The contrasting economic system either lets the government decide everything or private companies.It is obvious that letting the Philippine government complete control of everything would be stupid, since corruption will become impossible to stop. Allowing private companies to decide everything would also be unintelligible, since human rights violations would become even more rampant than it is now. The Philippines current economic system is a mix of the two contrasting. The government decides alongside private companies. At first, one would assume that this would be bad, combining the unstoppable corruption with the rampant abuse of human rights.

The thing is, though, the two parties, the government and the private companies, balance each other out. For example, if the government tries to squeeze a bribe out of a certain company through unsavory means, the company tries to get out of it through other unsavory means. When the company tries to abuse its employees or some other human rights violation, the government will then come down on it, asking for a bribe. Basically, both their greed counteract the other. That is why the best economic system is its current system.