Should the Government interfere in the economy?

Have you ever been on a soccer team? Then you must have noticed that that it takes teamwork and a lot of cooperation, and understanding from the other players to become successful. Most significantly, there is a coach. Who is willing to go out on a limb to make sure his team is keeping it together, and trying there hardest. He organizes all aspects of the team and keeps order. The coach informs you of, what you are going to learn, how to use your talent, and the target for your new skills. Without a coach there will be chaos and misunderstanding in the team. Only the best players will get to play and they will ignore the others. This example closely shadows how a government intervenes, within an economy when it is in need, or when a country is completely controlled by its government, which is why, I choose the above example.

The economy and its type, affect every one living in a country. It changes your values, your beliefs and your expectation. I believe that government control economy has several more advantages then a market economy. My first reason promoting government control is that, it controls the monopolies played by the large corporations. Bill Gates and his Microsoft Corporation, is the best example of these monopolies. Owning enough money to pay off the US debt and controlling eighty percent of the computer software business. He controls the prices of the computer software, by supply and demand of the buyers. Society can be greatly upset because he can increase the price whenever he wants to make few extra bucks, and he is, no doubt capable of doing this, because there is a huge demand of his software. Government interferes for the sake of public good by taxing him, and eventually the govt. will put an end to his monopoly. In a govt. controlled economy there are no extremely rich or greatly below the poverty line people, because as a coach, govt. will treat every one equally.

One of the most famous examples form history would be Hitler’s domination and control over his empire, in World War 2. He brought Germany out of, one of its biggest economic slumps, and built it into an efficient active economic monster. His minister of economy reduced imports, unemployment, and spend into wide rang of industries and made agreements with other nations. Nazi Government expanded the role of the government in directing the economy and reduced the role played by the market forces.

This example indicates that, when the govt. takes over, it solves the most awful problems like depression in no time.

In a central control economy, govt. plans ahead to the future of the country and looks for areas that are in need or will be needed. Just like a coach, who has tryouts, to selects the talented players, and trains them for future and hope that they will bring honour to the team. The shortage of nurses in Alberta is a classic example. Which can be blamed on the lack of planning and encouragement to boost the number of employees working in vulnerable jobs. In a govt. control economy this problem would have been foreseen and prevented as best as possible. This is my argument in favor of a govt. control economy, because I think, it meets the basic needs of every one, and there are no monopolies, the supply demand does not effects the economy, and the most of all, central economy looks ahead to the future and makes sure that there is balance. My thinking is that this kind of economy will suit every one and there will be a sense of order in the society. Teams have always needed a coach to organize and maintain peace within the team.