Why does it have to be government vs market?

[vulcanlogician]

Here's the problem with guvmint:

---

---

They will never ever, left to their own devices, ever ever come up with something even 1/2 as tasty as that.

And it don't matter how big guvmint gets, it will forever be beyond their ability to come with that !!


IOWs, Your vorlon is jonesing bad for some Chinese !

YUM! (Except for the shrimp. I hate shrimp.)



But I don't think the OP was endorsing a centrally planned economy in which all grocery stores are drab, government-run commissaries and all restaurants serve gruel. 

The idea is that, after the government expands entitlements substantially to its citizens (universal healthcare, free or very low cost education, and a comprehensive welfare state), the individual is now truly empowered and has the means to be successful that are nearly entirely absent from American capitalism. Only then can the government begin to slowly deregulate the market and let business be done nearly unrestricted.

The idea is that, through support from a foundation of entitlements, individuals are free to develop themselves. I rather like the idea. I think that by focusing on the happiness of all individual citizens, a society will find that people innately want to be productive. As it stands now, a great portion of the population has little chance to develop themselves, and they find themselves in dead end jobs, working to make plastic trinkets for corporations when they could be of greater benefit to society.

A system described by the OP allows people the necessary free time and resources to tap into their own creative/productive potential. And while McDonalds or Wendy's might not fair as well under such a system, a rarified chef might be afforded the opportunity to develop her culinary talents. If w'ere lucky, she might even open a restaurant down the street.  

In America we have a system of safety nets which protect the most impoverished of us from starvation. In debates concerning welfare, our officials often say things like "We're funding deadbeats etc." But what I think we should do is expand entitlements to encompass around half of the working population. What I view as central to any economy of this kind is a robust system of education. It's easy to point out how something like this could drain the public coffers, but one should keep in mind that this economy would put more money into the hands of common citizens. What do people do with money? They spend it! And a ton of money-spending consumers has been shown to stimulate an economy more than a few billionaires with tax breaks ever could.