We all know totalitarian communism was a failure (though it DID lift many people out of poverty, albeit at enormous cost of life and human rights), and it seems like doing the exact opposite and selling off the commons/embracing free markets to the fullest has also caused America and the UK to become poorer and has eroded our rights.
The “mixed economy” or Nordic model works very well, but only when you have organized labor. If you have low corporate taxes and weak labor power/rights, you just get plutocracy, which is what’s happening in America.
The “mixed” economy-more specifically the German “social market”/Bismarckian corporatist model. The UK, US, Singapore etc. are mixed economies, albeit far more laissez-faire than than Nordic or social market models.
Also “Grassroots” socialism seems to be a random mixture of zany utopianistic schemes and preindustrial (if not precivilizational) practices.
Government spending at all levels (state, federal, local) was 32% of US GDP in 1980 and 35% today. In what way have we moved from a “mixed economy” to “embracing free markets to the fullest”?
I think your categories are too mushy to support a meaningful range of answers. Sorry.
I don’t think the kind of economy, defined in this way, can be assigned a value of 'best against poverty." The fundamental component is a civic responsibility for all citizens, whether they are independently self-supporting, “productive” or not. Any political system can choose to include that ideal.
I lump them in with “free market” since even though technically they aren’t completely free markets, ideologically there is a lot of devotion to the market in those countries and there’s been a movement towards something completely libertarian that is not quite completed yet, but getting closer and closer.
After all, even the USSR was not purely socialist (and was never communist). You could buy a Coke there during the latter years, and they even allowed McDonalds in just before the whole stack of cards went down.
So then what’s your criteria for when a mixed economy becomes a free market one? The US, UK etc. maintain most of their welfare state and regulatory infrastructure and the high-tide of neoliberalism probably peaked in the Nineties and 00s.
Even if that were true, how would that separate the US into “free market” versus “mixed economy” over that time frame? Those who support a pure free market find corporate welfare just as objectionable as individual welfare.
And listing Texas separately as another pure free market? Do you have any idea how taxes work in Texas? For starters, there’s no individual income tax.
The US is still a mixed economy. Farm subsidies, unemployment, enviromental regulations…