Which model is the best economic model

I am actually - now - not interested in discussing which economic model is the best. It is primarily:
- What goal must the economy serve, whether it should serve someone / something at all, or it must be given free rein, like an evolutionary unit that has to assert itself in the environment ...
- what is meant by capitalist economy.
Barbarossa wrote:

I actually only use the term "market economy" and in the case of Germany it is the "social market economy".


It shows the conceptual confusion that prevails. In the term market effect, the freedom to exchange goods on the market is accentuated. Still the most important feature hits in the background: the capital, the s. z. has an inner drive to increase it. This is what the capitalist economy is based on. The market serves capital. Not the other way around.
Social Market economy should then mean the subsidies and social services of the state, which the wild rules of the market something more socialshape?! Then part of the companies that operate on the market are supported that would otherwise go under. And consumption by the economically inactive population is also "subsidized" so that they remain at the "teat" of the market and, albeit to a lesser extent, still contribute to its cycle. Here, too, what happens in companies (collective bargaining, employee rights, etc.) takes a back seat. Perhaps it even has to be because it seems that one really wants a social market, but not an economy ...

So the market economy corresponds to the capitalist economy, which Marx analyzed very closely. We leave out what conclusions he has drawn, it is not about them. It was 19th century and I think you agree that the capitalist economy and society was different then than it is today. Marx saw millions of workers who had nothing, who were exploited. Yet they were concentrated so that one could organize them for one fight and, for another, they were ready to organize themselves. A fight in the sense of the Enlightenment: "everyone is smith his luck" (you see, Titus, how can your opponent also use the same sentence ...). If you have nothing, you don't have to lose.

How does our society look today? Working class is shrinking. We have a strong middle class that has something to lose. Society is less dependent on hands than on the head. It is no coincidence that the women's movement is gaining in importance and recorded great victory, which brings intellectual powers that were previously included in the family into society. She desperately needs it. There are not only goods on the market, but also services - intellectual services. Not just material goods, but knowledge.

This type of economy is of course based on private companies that compete with one another.


We have to differentiate between small and medium-sized companies - family companies and international corporations, which, as private companies, can only be called with caution. The designation Privatemeans here only the pursuit of profit. The worker-capitalist relationship is decoupled, since the capitalist or one of the shareholders sits somewhere far at the table and has only one relationship with the company - when he receives his dividends. It is completely different with the capitalist in medium-sized companies. The direct reference is not lost there. You face your workers as a person, every day. It has implications ...

Something similar with the banks. This decoupling also took place there. Money has become an abstraction par excellence. An abstraction that is played with in the abstract world of the stock exchange and financial markets, but which does evil when the increasingly heavy cue ball falls from the abstract cloud back into reality and destroys it with all its force.

I think you have to pay attention to two levels of the economy: national and global. If we - and I emphasize we as welfare countries - seem to have tamed wild capitalism, at the international level it seems to be going through the phase of wild capitalism.

But even at the national level it is not as clear as I thought. I didn't know, for example, that in 70 years the liberalization of the economy would begin. So the time before - in the post-war period - socialization had taken place. I remind you again of Hobsbaum, who writes that the left currents have stepped out of the war and those in power would have to make concessions in order to want to stay in power at all. In this respect Hobsbawm seems to be right: the war, the fear of the Soviet Union or the ideas it represents, has caused what would not have come about without it. Evolutiv is like a mechanism when a bridge is built to reach another beach. Afterwards the bridge can be dismantled as not necessary. Incidentally, this is a mechanism that can also be observed in embryonic development: cells are multiplied and, at a certain point, the death of certain cells is initiated. I mean that it looks like SU served this purpose in social evolution: to be a bridge that served its purpose ...

So the return began in 70, which, according to my reading, has lasted until now.

By the way, while reading "The Globalization Paradox. Democracy and the Future of the World Economy" by Dani Rodrik. Should be a reputable economist. Would be interesting if any of you read the book too. Then we could s. Discuss "concentrated". Otherwise the topic is - an ocean. It would be good if you had something as a guide ...
I am not very interested in the specific policy relating to railways or energy. I'm interested in the basics, then I can also talk about daily politics ...