Why does the American mixed market system achieve economic success at the expense of social and moral decline?

[ricodiva]

(When I say social decline, I am refering to the lack of available social system resources) Furthermore, why does the UK's free market system achieve economic success as well as maintain high standards of social services available to EVERYONE!? Should America progress towards a total free market system or is America's social service failure and example of how free market economies don't work?

[Zap]

The UK is a Socialist country...consequently, social services are better because the Brits pay more in taxes to achieve that success and has little to do with the market economy in either country.

[PapaBear99]

Because a buisinessmans primary allegience is to stock holders, not to the people. And his primary mission as a buisnessman is profit, even if it is not right moraly. And at times the fastest and easiest way of making profit is thorugh inmoral methods.

[littleblanket]

Markets do not work if they do not reach and meet the needs of their consumer dependents. Every market values its success and its effectiveness. If other market modules are more productive, friendly, and worthwhile, it would not hurt the American economy to prefer those.

[drbsen]

There is an optimum mix of (a) free market mechanism and (b) Govt./ State activism in economic sphere. UK and US are both close to that optimum mix. The UK uses tax revenues to take care of social services through Govt. enterprise. The US uses the tax revenues for doling out cash (so-called welfare. Both the mixed economic systems achieve economic sucess and this has no effect on social and moral decline. Social and moral standards depends on the quality of effective social and moral leadership that the political establishment provides. The failure (social and moral decline) has nothing to do with the market mechanism or free markets: it is entirely a reflection of the standards the political and social elite cultivates. If the political leadership improves, social and moral improvements can take place. But US politicians seem more interested in larger govt. in economic activities with more and more regulation and impediments to free market system. Thus, both economic as well as social/ moral performance of the US is affected by ineffective political leadership (Democrats, Republications, others) playing games with each other and among theselves.

[Veritatum17]

Now this is an interesting question because the UK likewise has a mixed market system in that price controls are more or less absent, and producers and sellers are fairly free to set prices and thereby to compete. I would say it is not so much the market that has anything to do with a lack of available social system resources, but rather more explicit factors such as taxpayer tolerance for taxation and voter preferences for social support.

Moreover, I wouldn't necessarily link the presence or absence of social system resources with social or moral decline. Would some decline be prevented with adequate resources? Of course, but what social resources would prevent, say, addiction to pornography or poor communication in families, or could detect early stages of mental illnesses in persons who tend to stay introverted?

One of the key differences in social services in Britain and the U.S. is that American social services tend to be provided quite strongly by private entities (often with public funding), while British social services rely more heavily upon public provision as well as funding. This means that an unwed expectant teenager who is kicked out of her parents' home in Britain will talk to a ministry of welfare office, while the same girl in the U.S. may go to a church-affiliated shelter such as Our Lady's Inn or Covenant House.

Furthermore, much research has linked the moral decay in Britain (ie, high rates of crime and unwed pregnancies and abortions) to high unemployment rates, which is exacerbated (though not caused directly) by a generous welfare system and a lack of access to higher education, plus a rapidly expanding population of immigrants who really don't fit in culturally (France is suffering more acutely from this, as last summer's riots showed graphically).

In the U.S., on the other hand, high unemployment is generally locally endemic (and there linked strongly to crime and other social ills; urban areas such as Detroit and cities in New Jersey have been hit quite hard) while other social ills (recreational drug use, spread of STDs) is something that tends to come with improved income and the hedonism it affords to suburbanites. Consider that the fastest growth of STDs is among middle aged, upper class and middle class whites, not among lower economic status persons of any ethnicity.

Thus I think the evidence does not show a free market system as strongly correlating to social and moral decay, but rather various societal factors.

[angelwith4faces]

I think what your asking is the social welfare system a detriment to the economy? And why does the UK have lots of social services and a good economy, while the US has relatively little in social services and a good economy? Why doesn't the US do what the UK does?

First of all, most people believe there is a trade off between welfare and the economy. Failure provides an incentive to work hard. Thus, in the US, where welfare is the least, sure enough, the US is the most productive nation on earth - give or take an adjustment here and there.

However, there is also an argument that by taking care of its citizens, they can be more productive by having better health and education, so the UK (or European) approach is more productive. Thus, Europeans work less, most have better health coverage and statistics, and you could argue are better off. They may not have the largest output per worker, but they also enjoy longer lifespans and less crime.