A topic that constantly churns in mind is what is better, the free-market of economic policy or balanced regulation. With the passing away of former British PM Margaret Thatcher, attributed as the "savior" of the British economy by championing free-market and supply-side economics, this debate again springs to mind.
There is now enough empirical data that no economy can blossom without a dose of free-market principles that encourage competition. The rainbow of innovation is only possible upon the promise of the pot of gold at the end of it. Bluntly put, socialist and communist policies do not have even the carrot-at-the-end-of-the-stick incentive.
But outright capitalism is also like swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. The biggest danger is business monopolies and behemoths influencing and lobbying government to adopt policies that benefit a select few and is against public good. In the 2008 financial crisis we also saw how market greed created a glut that caused a global recession.
A balance is a must. "Optimum" taxation is required so that the poorest, thus so for whatever reason, do not die hungry or are denied emergency medical treatment. But beyond that, tax code must be kept gracious, such that most exemptions prove needless. Retirement should not be a given. So pension/social security, etc schemes should be curtailed. But when a person retires his medical and food expense should at least be supported. The rest, have to be through provident fund/ 401k savings. Apart from basic services like education, defence, environment and administration, transparent free enterprise, indeed, would be the best course forward!
No comments:
Post a Comment