Yes, but I'm not sure that pure capitalism with the exception of safety regulation would be considered "mixed" or not. "Managed" is a long jump from laissez faire that implies far more than mere safety regulation.

 

Well, it seems like most regulations are made to address someone or something's "safety" issue. Isn't that one of the reasons America is considered to be a mixed economy? "Managed" can mean anything from a few safety regulations to all economic activity being controlled by the state. IMO the less "managed" an economy is, the better, so long as those participating in that economy are not abrogating the rights of everyone else while doing so. In a perfect world laissez faire might be a good system, unfortunately we are left with trying to figure out how to apply it, if at all, to our real, imperfect world.

Well, it seems like most regulations are made to address someone or something's "safety" issue. Isn't that one of the reasons America is considered to be a mixed economy? "Managed" can mean anything from a few safety regulations to all economic activity being controlled by the state. IMO the less "managed" an economy is, the better, so long as those participating in that economy are not abrogating the rights of everyone else while doing so. In a perfect world laissez faire might be a good system, unfortunately we are left with trying to figure out how to apply it, if at all, to our real, imperfect world.

 

Yeah, see, you're making my point for me about "managed" being such a broad title. And that's why I was asking.

 

Usually, when I'm talking about "managed", I'm referring to Federal Reserve manipulations.

 

I appreciate safety regulation, but I do not appreciate other kinds of central management.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/12/business/yen.php

 

 

"I thought America had studied Japan's failures," said Hirofumi Gomi, a top official at the Japanese Financial Services Agency during the crisis. "Why is it making the same mistakes?"

 

Some U.S. critics of the plan announced Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said it lacked details. Experts on Japan found it timid - especially given the size of the banking crisis the administration faces.

 

"I think they know how big it is, but they don't want to say how big it is," said John Makin, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, referring to administration officials. "It's so big they can't acknowledge it."

 

He added: "The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks."

 

And Japan's export and consumer savings rate was much better than ours.