To what extent do you agree with free market economics being more Essay

To what extent do you agree with free foodstuff economic science being more effective than a mixed economy - Essay ExampleThe government apart from refraining from regulating the market also does not take into account any services and leaves this to the private sector. This kind of market has received both positive argument and negative ones (Hodgson, 2006). Those who do not feel that this kind of market economy can be efficient argue for a mixed market economy which includes the role of the government both as a regulator as well as a player in the production of goods and services. This mixed market is also called Keynesian economics, named after the famous English economic expert who helped in the rebuilding of the American economy during the great economic recession of the 1930s in the United States of America. The mixed market system features the government as a referee and prefect in the economy, providing for regulation and control as much as is needed. It also features the government as the provider of the most crucial and basal needs and services to the public. This is done to make sure that these are not capitalized. These services include education especially at elementally level, health and security. In a mixed market economy, the private sector is involved in the greater part of the production, but under the watch of the government.There are a flake of advantages with regard to the mixed market. To begin with, the fact that the government is involved in the production of essential services is important in order to provide for the aegis of those who may not afford to get these services from the capitalist market. The mixed market also regulates the private sector for the purposes of protecting consumers against unfair exploitation. Those who argue in favor of the mixed market argue that the belief by free-markets enthusiasts that the market has its own way of regulating itself through the laws of demand and supply (competition) are essentially wrong. This argument against the efficacy and