How does a market-oriented system (like the US mixed-capitalist system) determine "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced? Is this system the best way? Why or why not?
It is the amount of net income that a person has. If a person does not have money to spend on a good or service then he will not get it. i think this is a good system to have because if everything was just given to us that means the goods and services will be cheap and there will be no variety to choose from.
In the US the decision on who get how much is determined by how high the prices are, where its being produced, and what quantity is being produced. I think it is a good system because the consumer ends up wth the competitive prices so you will end up paying less.
In the market-oriented system, the most important thing is "PRICE". People who are willing to pay the most expensive price will get goods and services. It prefer efficiency to equity. Eventually, "Who gets how much" is determined by price. I think this way will increase the gap between the rich and the poor. I strongly believe that market and government should be balanced. They have to keep in check each other.
From my understanding, the US mixed-capitalist system determines "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced through government and laws. I think this system is good, despite its drawbacks. The good thing about this type of market is that government can help stabilize where resources are distributed. Laws can also help both the consumer and businesses. Lastly, wealth can be redistributed as necessary (so those at and below poverty level can survive, while rich people can still hoard all their money). The bad parts about this type of market are that companies have limited growth and there can be entrepreneurial constraints. Also, government control can cause sometimes cause problems like the surplus of labor due to minimum wage, for example.
I have to agree with some of my classmates and say that price determines who gets how much because of the graphs we draw in class. Anyone can see that the greater the price, the less people can buy a good or service and the lower the price, the more people can buy a good or service. Thus, the price is ultimately determined by the market which is usually government regulated so prices are instated at certain levels. As Samuel said, this helps resources get distributed where they are needed most. So it is good for those reasons since our resources are being allocated properly. If you also consider the amount of people who are willing to buy the good or service and proper allocations of resources, then this is the best way. Could our system be improved? As bold as this may sound, I believe so. I think that we can supply the demand for more goods and services even though I couldn't tell you how we should do it.
In the US mixed-capitalist system I think that price and quantity will be the leading factors determine in a market system who gets how much.For example if the market price of a good is too high there will be less buyers are willing to pay, then less quantity of this good will be produced by the firm. However if the price of the good or service is fairly low there more and more people are willing to purchase so that the firms will increase their amount of output in order to sell more.However in oder to seek for a balance it not only depend on the market itself with the "invisible hand" ,but also the visible hand from government to control and regulate the market price. I think that is the weak side if this mixed-capitalist system. Anyway it is still a good system and it works just fine in the short run.
In the market-oriented system, the market drives the price of production. at the same time, the demand drive the price of production as well, so in the market-oriented system, rich person has more freedom to get whatever they want, and poor person can only get little whatever they could afford. So in this system, the difference will become more and more bigger. So i do not think market-oriented system is the best way. Actually, i do not think there is some system can solve all the economy issues, comparing to other country's situation, market-oriented system is much better than other system to fit American economy system.
A market-oriented system like the US mixed-capitalist system is the best way to determine "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced because of how our country is set up. Only in America can someone start out with nothing and eventually have riches and success. Most countries do not allow this. They either have very rich people or very poor people. There are flaws in the American economic system. But, everything has flaws and can always be improved. In this country if you work hard and make good money you should be able to buy things others can not afford. It motivates people to work harder and want to attain these goods.
I believe the Market is the best way to allocate resources. It matches sellers who value the process of creating a good or service with consumers who value the good or service by paying the asking price. Although, i would say unfortunately, like other systems, market oriented systems dont always account for externalities. For example, in the case of pollution although someone may pay for carbon emissions into the environment, everyone must share the negative extenality. This is also true in the case of building an airport near a residential area, there is a definite externality that is tough to compensate for monitarely. How do you compensate for traffic, noise, and pollution? In these instances, the market system doesnt always provide a balance, but does put a nice price tag on things!
I think a market-oriented system determines "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced by relying on prices to signal buyers and sellers regarding value and basically people who have jobs and income can afford to spend on goods and services and so far I agree with the system.
If you have the money to pay for the good or service you can have the option in obtaining it over the person that doesn't have the money or can afford it. There has been a lot of sophisticated research conducted in today's society weather that's the correct approach to look at this matter. It truly isn't if you look at in the perceptive that was mentioned in chapter 11 regarding the AIDS pill that individuals who are affected have to purchase in order to stay alive. Some just cannot afford it. Even if their was a cure for AIDS that was 100% most would not be able to afford only the rich like Magic Johnson would have the capability to do so not the average joe.
The biggest two factors for a company to figure out who gets how much is by setting up the price of the good and how much of the good is going to be produced. If a company wants their product to be exclusive for certain people they with produce a few amount of goods and make the price high. If they want to make it accessible for a big amount of people then they would produce large quantities of the good and set a low price.
the amount of income has alot to do with what how much a person can consume. i really dont think there is another way to deal with this situation because it has been in this form for a long time. also becuase it may be the best way that the economy can operate with out clash.
This system is not the best for consumer but great for firms because companys that have more expensive products are look at as being better than cheaper products usually. Consumers might not be satisfied with less expensive products and would be willing to spend more on a "better" quality product. out system decides who get how much by having different prices available for products at different places. those who cant afford it will have less available to them determining that those who have less, get less and those who have more, get more.
the price of the good decides who gets how much, if the price is to high then the people with lower income will get less than the people with higher income that are able to afford the good. i think its good depending on the product, for example bread shouldn't be expensive because its food and food is essential but those designer $2000 shoes are not essential.
The price should decided who gets how much, i think that is the best way because you don't want have the price to high or too low because then there wont be enough of that good or if its too expensive then people wont be able to afford it and it its what the good is worth you are paying the right amount for what you want.
If you have a high income you are able to spend more money on a good than a person who has a lower income. It all depends on the price of the good. If it's too expensive then maybe the person with the lower income will not be able to afford it than the person who is making twice as much.
Price decides and determines who gets how much of a product. A person of higher income is able to afford more than someone who isn't as fortunate. Although this system has its draw backs because it is not necessarily efficient for those in need of the service, it is the best way to keep the economy going therefore it is the best way.
In the market oriented system, price desiceds who gets how much. It depends on the income level. Person who gets high income is able to buy stuffs a lot and low income person cannot have afford to buy stuffs. Therefore, price determins who gets how much.
Price is of goods and services is what determines who gets how much. This system is good overall but it has its flaws. The use of credit card lets people spend money they don't have and the capitalist competition greatly reduces the price of good and services to a price that is to low to equal its original value.
In the market oriented its all about price and income. If you have the money then by all means buy do what you want to do because its your money. Price makes a difference, but at the end of the day income helps a lot. Is it the best way?? yea i think.. its been working so I am not complaining.. better than being in a socialist government
in the market oriented system, it the price that determines who gets how much. if you are able to afford something, then you get to get it (if it is available), but if you can't afford it, then you can't get it. its as simple as that. Price makes all the difference for who gets how much.
In the market oriented system, its about the price and the income that one makes. Usually if one makes more income they can buy goods and services that they like. Someone who makes less income has to buy what they can afford based on their income.
I think price and income is the determinant of who gets how much and I do feel like this may or may not be fair but it seems like it would be the only thing that would work.
I believe that a market orientated system like the US mixed-capitalist system determines who get of how much of what is produced my how much they are willing to pay, how much income is acquired and how much one is willing and able to buy. I think this is the best way because if you make more money you can consume more and if you make less you will consume less. It may not be fair that others can consume more than others because of ones income. But i feel people have made the choices to receive the income that acquire and they have to work with what they have.
Like many have said, I think that the market orientated system is mostly about price and income. If you make enough money to afford something, then you can, if you can't, you can't. Prices and income make a difference with who gets how much.
The key thing is price and income. The goverment determines the prices of who gets how much and i think the system is a good system because at the end of the day we end up paying less then more. Prices always determines who gets how much.
The U.S. economy can be characterized as the mixed-capitalist system. The whole distribution between “who gets how much” of the goods and services produced is not solely depended on the power of “free market”; the government also plays an important role in determining “who gets how much” and what prices and quantities to set. The market-oriented system determines “who gets how much” by seeking to the price system and the type of market structure. Indeed, the firm would produce the quantity and set up the price according to the demand curve and based on the marginal cost and average cost, firms can decide how many quantity to produce and how much to charge. At the equilibrium point, a maximum consumer surplus and producer surplus is able to be obtained. Government can partly decide “who gets how much” by the practice of “taxing” or “subsiding”. As far as I am concerned right now, it is an efficient way to determine “who gets how much”. Through the measure of “taxing”, government is able to adjust the negative externalities or promote the positive externalities via taxing or subsiding.
I think the market-oriented system determent who gest much is by the price of the product. The buyers then will buy as much as they can pay with that price. I think the system has some good and bad things.
I think, in the market-oriented system, but also mixed one, "who gets how much" is basically determined by price as we learned from demand & supply curve. However, because it is "mixed" one, which means laws and policies by government exist, secondarily this question is determined by efficiency and equity. In my opinion, it's could be the best way we can take in the present times, before an other better system emerges.
"who gets how much" of the goods and services produced I think that depend on consumer's requirements. In US, the market-oriented system may can determine that. But in other country I think that would be very hard to do.
market-oriented system is the who pay money more than other people, who can get the service. in market- oriented system, cpital determines resource allocation. i think this is the best way, and most countries in the world use this method.
Markets determine who gets what by who has how much. If you have the money to buy a good, you get it. If you don't have the money to buy the good, tough cookies. In a world where everyone has a job, this is by far the best way to decide who gets how much. But in the world we live in where not everyone has a job, wouldn't we think people should get things by who needs it the most? But oh well, that must have its own flaws as well.
Price and income determine who gets how much. At times it can seem like an annoying way to determine things when you don't have enough money to buy what you want, however it does seem like the best way to determine who gets how much in the long run.
The market oriented system determines who gets how much based on the people's income and the prices that are set. If people's incomes can not support certain purchases, they do not get them. This system seems fair to me in most situations, those who earn high paying jobs are able to buy more expensive products.
"who gets how much" of the goods and services produced? depends on price, income,and the willingness to play a certain amount for the good and service. sadly the US mixed-capitalist system is a way to show the rich from the poor though expensive products.
Who gets how much is dependent on what the price of the product/service, the level of expendable income, and the desire for the item.I think it is a good system because it can promote competition which will result in innovation and higher quality and lower prices. also because it allows us to choose what is best for us individually. We are not all the same, we all want/need different things.
In market-oriented system, who get how much is determined by the price, the price is higher, the buyers must be less, and the quantity must be less too. So I think it is a best way, it make the market become more balance.
Because we're so used to the mixed-capitalist system in America, I agree that it's determined by price, income, and willingness to pay for products & services. I think this market-oriented system works because its pretty efficient so far, it's so complex to find out perfectly of who gets how much. I guess as long as the lower-market products are controlled with regulations as to not harm the consumers who can't pay for high quality items, I can see this system working indefinitely.
I think this is depend on the price, income and Personal preference. If the price of the products and services are high that means less people will buy it. Also income and personal preference will determine it. if the person's income is higher, they will buy the products which he like. And if income is lower, sometimes he will consider whether the price he can afford. I think this is the best way in this country because the consumer will compare the competitive prices and pay less to buy a good stuff.
In my opinion it depends on each household income from how much money they make depends how much products and services they receive. I agree with this system because it gives incentive to people to work harder and to make more money and seek better living status.
I think that it all revolves around money! if you have a lot of money you can pay for good quality products, homes, and an expensive lifestyle. Unfortunately it doesn't end at that. If you have a lot of money you can also get the best medical treatments available. Lets look at Magic Johnson for example. He tested positive for aids and somehow still lives perfectly fine. However if it were a normal american citizen, chances are they would already be dead. I think this system sucks, but its never going to change unfortunately.
I believe that prices determine "who gets how much" of the goods. I believe this system works if your rich and doesn't if your poor. The rich have no problem with the system, however the poor find themselves struggling to obtain certain goods and services.
A market-oriented system (like the US mixed-capitalist system) determine "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced by matching the buyers with the sellers. This system allows variety and freedom to choose what you want to buy, how much to buy, and who to buy from. Even though variety is the spice of life, this system is flawed and is not the best system at times because seller can make their own prices by looking at the need. For example, a company that sells AIDS medicine can charge $125 per pill yet it only takes $12 to make the pill. This isn’t right because the people in need can’t afford their item.
The Market oriented system in America og who gets how much is determined by income. If there is a high income of course the consumer decides how much to get , the choices for him are higher. In the opposite a person of low income has minimum choices and the quality of the goods is not that high. In my opinion I believe a capitalistic system is not the right model. I believe that capitalism doesn't account for everybody and only a few determine who gets how much. Manuel Marroquin 003717102
In this system it is pretty much your income level that determines what you can and can't get. I think it's fair in a sense, true that some things may be driven out of proportion or ridiculously priced but overall if you've worked hard and have the higher income you have the choice of getting better things. Honestly not many of us are at that level of status but if we were I doubt we would be complaining.
Whoever has the most money gets what they want. It is the best system because it has worked out so far.Whoever contributes more to society, gets more back. It is the best system.
In a market-oriented system,Price determines who gets that much and i beleive this is system is the best way because competetion in prices is always good.
Cant say it is entirely good or bad, it just depends on how one uses it
but i must say if there wasnt some system out there to determine the value of worth, basically the entire economy could collapse, cars being $3 where food is $10,000. If everyone was able to just set the price to anything, i picture complete anarchy
the way our system is set up is that the price determines who gets how much, if any of the good or service. therefore how much income someone has also affects who gets how much you get. i think that the system has not failed us because most people have their basic needs met due to relatively low prices on necessities, but it is our wants that are hard to get thanks to price. our system also works due to competitive firms who keep prices low.
Price and income, just like everyone had mentioned are really big factors on who gets how much in the US market system. It makes sense if a person earns more money, then they obviously can afford more and get more goods and services. Of course it would be nice for everyone to have the same amount of goods and services and have an equal amount of wealth, aka communism, so it just only seems fair that you get however much depending on how much you earn. -Jenna Halili
A market orientated system decides who gets how much by the income one person earns by created goods and services for others. I think this is best system because it creates some form of equality. If you work harder you get more,that's how I was raised and that's how the world works.
I think it comes down to income at the end of the day. Obviously the more money you make, the more/better goods and services you'll receive. It's sad to see those with the less income receive less goods and services but it keeps everything stable. Perhaps a system involving collateral with the less income population could help though.
Who gets "how much" is based on the price and quantity of a good or service that is produced and because of that there is a limit on to what some people may be able to obtain because of the income they earn may not allow them to make those purchases. I think that at least the essential things that we see fit in our society should be made affordable for all that way no one is left out of what they need to live, and everything else would be considered a luxury.
I think its good, but I also think it is bad. Because we have this type of market system, people will never be satisfied. They'll always want more and would also expect more. Just like my collegues have stated, price and income are the main factors here. They are very much related and helps defined our market system. I don't think it is a good market system but what other choice do we have. If there is a higher income, the prices will be higher vice versa
It depends on how much money you have and who you know in the system. No, I do not believe this is the best way to go because those who do not have as much would get the short end of the stick, which would mean that the better goods & services would be given out to those who are at the top of the list. Also those who are just ordinary people would get treated horribly because their name isn't known as great as those who are well known and have a good reputation or name behind them. so basically the system separates people by who is better than others
Mark oriented system determine who gets how much of goods with the prices set by the quantity available. Good that are found locally, or generally used daily are sold at lower prices. Expensive goods are priced higher than others are sold to a specific group of store associated in their category. The system doesn't work well with meeting everyone's need, everyone is not entitled or guaranteed to get the same quality or good. As consumers,we become frustrated or overly concerned from whether we can afford the good to how much is left of the good.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is the amount of net income that a person has. If a person does not have money to spend on a good or service then he will not get it. i think this is a good system to have because if everything was just given to us that means the goods and services will be cheap and there will be no variety to choose from.
ReplyDelete-Todd Cullen
In the US the decision on who get how much is determined by how high the prices are, where its being produced, and what quantity is being produced. I think it is a good system because the consumer ends up wth the competitive prices so you will end up paying less.
ReplyDeleteIn the market-oriented system, the most important thing is "PRICE". People who are willing to pay the most expensive price will get goods and services. It prefer efficiency to equity. Eventually, "Who gets how much" is determined by price. I think this way will increase the gap between the rich and the poor. I strongly believe that market and government should be balanced. They have to keep in check each other.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, the US mixed-capitalist system determines "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced through government and laws. I think this system is good, despite its drawbacks. The good thing about this type of market is that government can help stabilize where resources are distributed. Laws can also help both the consumer and businesses. Lastly, wealth can be redistributed as necessary (so those at and below poverty level can survive, while rich people can still hoard all their money). The bad parts about this type of market are that companies have limited growth and there can be entrepreneurial constraints. Also, government control can cause sometimes cause problems like the surplus of labor due to minimum wage, for example.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with some of my classmates and say that price determines who gets how much because of the graphs we draw in class. Anyone can see that the greater the price, the less people can buy a good or service and the lower the price, the more people can buy a good or service. Thus, the price is ultimately determined by the market which is usually government regulated so prices are instated at certain levels. As Samuel said, this helps resources get distributed where they are needed most. So it is good for those reasons since our resources are being allocated properly. If you also consider the amount of people who are willing to buy the good or service and proper allocations of resources, then this is the best way. Could our system be improved? As bold as this may sound, I believe so. I think that we can supply the demand for more goods and services even though I couldn't tell you how we should do it.
ReplyDeleteIn the US mixed-capitalist system I think that price and quantity will be the leading factors determine in a market system who gets how much.For example if the market price of a good is too high there will be less buyers are willing to pay, then less quantity of this good will be produced by the firm. However if the price of the good or service is fairly low there more and more people are willing to purchase so that the firms will increase their amount of output in order to sell more.However in oder to seek for a balance it not only depend on the market itself with the "invisible hand" ,but also the visible hand from government to control and regulate the market price. I think that is the weak side if this mixed-capitalist system. Anyway it is still a good system and it works just fine in the short run.
ReplyDeleteIn the market-oriented system, the market drives the price of production. at the same time, the demand drive the price of production as well, so in the market-oriented system, rich person has more freedom to get whatever they want, and poor person can only get little whatever they could afford. So in this system, the difference will become more and more bigger. So i do not think market-oriented system is the best way. Actually, i do not think there is some system can solve all the economy issues, comparing to other country's situation, market-oriented system is much better than other system to fit American economy system.
ReplyDeleteA market-oriented system like the US mixed-capitalist system is the best way to determine "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced because of how our country is set up. Only in America can someone start out with nothing and eventually have riches and success. Most countries do not allow this. They either have very rich people or very poor people. There are flaws in the American economic system. But, everything has flaws and can always be improved. In this country if you work hard and make good money you should be able to buy things others can not afford. It motivates people to work harder and want to attain these goods.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Market is the best way to allocate resources. It matches sellers who value the process of creating a good or service with consumers who value the good or service by paying the asking price. Although, i would say unfortunately, like other systems, market oriented systems dont always account for externalities. For example, in the case of pollution although someone may pay for carbon emissions into the environment, everyone must share the negative extenality. This is also true in the case of building an airport near a residential area, there is a definite externality that is tough to compensate for monitarely. How do you compensate for traffic, noise, and pollution? In these instances, the market system doesnt always provide a balance, but does put a nice price tag on things!
ReplyDeleteI think a market-oriented system determines "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced by relying on prices to signal buyers and sellers regarding value and basically people who have jobs and income can afford to spend on goods and services and so far I agree with the system.
ReplyDeleteIf you have the money to pay for the good or service you can have the option in obtaining it over the person that doesn't have the money or can afford it. There has been a lot of sophisticated research conducted in today's society weather that's the correct approach to look at this matter. It truly isn't if you look at in the perceptive that was mentioned in chapter 11 regarding the AIDS pill that individuals who are affected have to purchase in order to stay alive. Some just cannot afford it. Even if their was a cure for AIDS that was 100% most would not be able to afford only the rich like Magic Johnson would have the capability to do so not the average joe.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest two factors for a company to figure out who gets how much is by setting up the price of the good and how much of the good is going to be produced. If a company wants their product to be exclusive for certain people they with produce a few amount of goods and make the price high. If they want to make it accessible for a big amount of people then they would produce large quantities of the good and set a low price.
ReplyDelete-Robert Arnold
the amount of income has alot to do with what how much a person can consume. i really dont think there is another way to deal with this situation because it has been in this form for a long time. also becuase it may be the best way that the economy can operate with out clash.
ReplyDeleteThis system is not the best for consumer but great for firms because companys that have more expensive products are look at as being better than cheaper products usually. Consumers might not be satisfied with less expensive products and would be willing to spend more on a "better" quality product. out system decides who get how much by having different prices available for products at different places. those who cant afford it will have less available to them determining that those who have less, get less and those who have more, get more.
ReplyDeletethe price of the good decides who gets how much, if the price is to high then the people with lower income will get less than the people with higher income that are able to afford the good. i think its good depending on the product, for example bread shouldn't be expensive because its food and food is essential but those designer $2000 shoes are not essential.
ReplyDeleteThe price should decided who gets how much, i think that is the best way because you don't want have the price to high or too low because then there wont be enough of that good or if its too expensive then people wont be able to afford it and it its what the good is worth you are paying the right amount for what you want.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a high income you are able to spend more money on a good than a person who has a lower income. It all depends on the price of the good. If it's too expensive then maybe the person with the lower income will not be able to afford it than the person who is making twice as much.
ReplyDeletePrice decides and determines who gets how much of a product. A person of higher income is able to afford more than someone who isn't as fortunate. Although this system has its draw backs because it is not necessarily efficient for those in need of the service, it is the best way to keep the economy going therefore it is the best way.
ReplyDeleteIn the market oriented system, price desiceds who gets how much. It depends on the income level. Person who gets high income is able to buy stuffs a lot and low income person cannot have afford to buy stuffs. Therefore, price determins who gets how much.
ReplyDeletePrice is of goods and services is what determines who gets how much. This system is good overall but it has its flaws. The use of credit card lets people spend money they don't have and the capitalist competition greatly reduces the price of good and services to a price that is to low to equal its original value.
ReplyDeleteIn the market oriented its all about price and income. If you have the money then by all means buy do what you want to do because its your money. Price makes a difference, but at the end of the day income helps a lot. Is it the best way?? yea i think.. its been working so I am not complaining.. better than being in a socialist government
ReplyDeletein the market oriented system, it the price that determines who gets how much. if you are able to afford something, then you get to get it (if it is available), but if you can't afford it, then you can't get it. its as simple as that. Price makes all the difference for who gets how much.
ReplyDeleteIn the market oriented system, its about the price and the income that one makes. Usually if one makes more income they can buy goods and services that they like. Someone who makes less income has to buy what they can afford based on their income.
ReplyDeleteI think price and income is the determinant of who gets how much and I do feel like this may or may not be fair but it seems like it would be the only thing that would work.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a market orientated system like the US mixed-capitalist system determines who get of how much of what is produced my how much they are willing to pay, how much income is acquired and how much one is willing and able to buy. I think this is the best way because if you make more money you can consume more and if you make less you will consume less. It may not be fair that others can consume more than others because of ones income. But i feel people have made the choices to receive the income that acquire and they have to work with what they have.
ReplyDeleteLike many have said, I think that the market orientated system is mostly about price and income. If you make enough money to afford something, then you can, if you can't, you can't. Prices and income make a difference with who gets how much.
ReplyDeleteI think it is depends on people, culture, and different countries. In US this system might be good, but for other countries it's not.
ReplyDeleteThe key thing is price and income. The goverment determines the prices of who gets how much and i think the system is a good system because at the end of the day we end up paying less then more. Prices always determines who gets how much.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. economy can be characterized as the mixed-capitalist system. The whole distribution between “who gets how much” of the goods and services produced is not solely depended on the power of “free market”; the government also plays an important role in determining “who gets how much” and what prices and quantities to set. The market-oriented system determines “who gets how much” by seeking to the price system and the type of market structure. Indeed, the firm would produce the quantity and set up the price according to the demand curve and based on the marginal cost and average cost, firms can decide how many quantity to produce and how much to charge. At the equilibrium point, a maximum consumer surplus and producer surplus is able to be obtained. Government can partly decide “who gets how much” by the practice of “taxing” or “subsiding”. As far as I am concerned right now, it is an efficient way to determine “who gets how much”. Through the measure of “taxing”, government is able to adjust the negative externalities or promote the positive externalities via taxing or subsiding.
ReplyDeleteI think the market-oriented system determent who gest much is by the price of the product. The buyers then will buy as much as they can pay with that price. I think the system has some good and bad things.
ReplyDeleteI think, in the market-oriented system, but also mixed one, "who gets how much" is basically determined by price as we learned from demand & supply curve. However, because it is "mixed" one, which means laws and policies by government exist, secondarily this question is determined by efficiency and equity. In my opinion, it's could be the best way we can take in the present times, before an other better system emerges.
ReplyDelete"who gets how much" of the goods and services produced I think that depend on consumer's requirements. In US, the market-oriented system may can determine that. But in other country I think that would be very hard to do.
ReplyDeletemarket-oriented system is the who pay money more than other people, who can get the service. in market- oriented system, cpital determines resource allocation. i think this is the best way, and most countries in the world use this method.
ReplyDeleteMarkets determine who gets what by who has how much. If you have the money to buy a good, you get it. If you don't have the money to buy the good, tough cookies. In a world where everyone has a job, this is by far the best way to decide who gets how much. But in the world we live in where not everyone has a job, wouldn't we think people should get things by who needs it the most? But oh well, that must have its own flaws as well.
ReplyDeletePrice and income determine who gets how much. At times it can seem like an annoying way to determine things when you don't have enough money to buy what you want, however it does seem like the best way to determine who gets how much in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe market oriented system determines who gets how much based on the people's income and the prices that are set. If people's incomes can not support certain purchases, they do not get them. This system seems fair to me in most situations, those who earn high paying jobs are able to buy more expensive products.
ReplyDelete"who gets how much" of the goods and services produced? depends on price, income,and the willingness to play a certain amount for the good and service. sadly the US mixed-capitalist system is a way to show the rich from the poor though expensive products.
ReplyDeleteWho gets how much is dependent on what the price of the product/service, the level of expendable income, and the desire for the item.I think it is a good system because it can promote competition which will result in innovation and higher quality and lower prices. also because it allows us to choose what is best for us individually. We are not all the same, we all want/need different things.
ReplyDeleteIn market-oriented system, who get how much is determined by the price, the price is higher, the buyers must be less, and the quantity must be less too. So I think it is a best way, it make the market become more balance.
ReplyDeleteBecause we're so used to the mixed-capitalist system in America, I agree that it's determined by price, income, and willingness to pay for products & services. I think this market-oriented system works because its pretty efficient so far, it's so complex to find out perfectly of who gets how much. I guess as long as the lower-market products are controlled with regulations as to not harm the consumers who can't pay for high quality items, I can see this system working indefinitely.
ReplyDeleteI think this is depend on the price, income and Personal preference. If the price of the products and services are high that means less people will buy it. Also income and personal preference will determine it. if the person's income is higher, they will buy the products which he like. And if income is lower, sometimes he will consider whether the price he can afford. I think this is the best way in this country because the consumer will compare the competitive prices and pay less to buy a good stuff.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it depends on each household income from how much money they make depends how much products and services they receive. I agree with this system because it gives incentive to people to work harder and to make more money and seek better living status.
ReplyDeleteI think that it all revolves around money! if you have a lot of money you can pay for good quality products, homes, and an expensive lifestyle. Unfortunately it doesn't end at that. If you have a lot of money you can also get the best medical treatments available. Lets look at Magic Johnson for example. He tested positive for aids and somehow still lives perfectly fine. However if it were a normal american citizen, chances are they would already be dead. I think this system sucks, but its never going to change unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI believe that prices determine "who gets how much" of the goods. I believe this system works if your rich and doesn't if your poor. The rich have no problem with the system, however the poor find themselves struggling to obtain certain goods and services.
ReplyDeleteA market-oriented system (like the US mixed-capitalist system) determine "who gets how much" of the goods and services produced by matching the buyers with the sellers. This system allows variety and freedom to choose what you want to buy, how much to buy, and who to buy from. Even though variety is the spice of life, this system is flawed and is not the best system at times because seller can make their own prices by looking at the need. For example, a company that sells AIDS medicine can charge $125 per pill yet it only takes $12 to make the pill. This isn’t right because the people in need can’t afford their item.
ReplyDeleteThe Market oriented system in America og who gets how much is determined by income. If there is a high income of course the consumer decides how much to get , the choices for him are higher. In the opposite a person of low income has minimum choices and the quality of the goods is not that high. In my opinion I believe a capitalistic system is not the right model. I believe that capitalism doesn't account for everybody and only a few determine who gets how much.
ReplyDeleteManuel Marroquin
003717102
In this system it is pretty much your income level that determines what you can and can't get. I think it's fair in a sense, true that some things may be driven out of proportion or ridiculously priced but overall if you've worked hard and have the higher income you have the choice of getting better things. Honestly not many of us are at that level of status but if we were I doubt we would be complaining.
ReplyDeleteWhoever has the most money gets what they want. It is the best system because it has worked out so far.Whoever contributes more to society, gets more back. It is the best system.
ReplyDeleteIn a market-oriented system,Price determines who gets that much and i beleive this is system is the best way because competetion in prices is always good.
ReplyDelete-German Coreas
Cant say it is entirely good or bad, it just depends on how one uses it
ReplyDeletebut i must say if there wasnt some system out there to determine the value of worth, basically the entire economy could collapse, cars being $3 where food is $10,000. If everyone was able to just set the price to anything, i picture complete anarchy
the way our system is set up is that the price determines who gets how much, if any of the good or service. therefore how much income someone has also affects who gets how much you get. i think that the system has not failed us because most people have their basic needs met due to relatively low prices on necessities, but it is our wants that are hard to get thanks to price. our system also works due to competitive firms who keep prices low.
ReplyDeletePrice and income, just like everyone had mentioned are really big factors on who gets how much in the US market system. It makes sense if a person earns more money, then they obviously can afford more and get more goods and services.
ReplyDeleteOf course it would be nice for everyone to have the same amount of goods and services and have an equal amount of wealth, aka communism, so it just only seems fair that you get however much depending on how much you earn.
-Jenna Halili
A market orientated system decides who gets how much by the income one person earns by created goods and services for others. I think this is best system because it creates some form of equality. If you work harder you get more,that's how I was raised and that's how the world works.
ReplyDelete-Matthew Smith
I think it comes down to income at the end of the day. Obviously the more money you make, the more/better goods and services you'll receive. It's sad to see those with the less income receive less goods and services but it keeps everything stable. Perhaps a system involving collateral with the less income population could help though.
ReplyDeleteWho gets "how much" is based on the price and quantity of a good or service that is produced and because of that there is a limit on to what some people may be able to obtain because of the income they earn may not allow them to make those purchases. I think that at least the essential things that we see fit in our society should be made affordable for all that way no one is left out of what they need to live, and everything else would be considered a luxury.
ReplyDeleteI think its good, but I also think it is bad. Because we have this type of market system, people will never be satisfied. They'll always want more and would also expect more. Just like my collegues have stated, price and income are the main factors here. They are very much related and helps defined our market system. I don't think it is a good market system but what other choice do we have. If there is a higher income, the prices will be higher vice versa
ReplyDeleteIt depends on how much money you have and who you know in the system. No, I do not believe this is the best way to go because those who do not have as much would get the short end of the stick, which would mean that the better goods & services would be given out to those who are at the top of the list. Also those who are just ordinary people would get treated horribly because their name isn't known as great as those who are well known and have a good reputation or name behind them. so basically the system separates people by who is better than others
ReplyDeleteMark oriented system determine who gets how much of goods with the prices set by the quantity available. Good that are found locally, or generally used daily are sold at lower prices. Expensive goods are priced higher than others are sold to a specific group of store associated in their category. The system doesn't work well with meeting everyone's need, everyone is not entitled or guaranteed to get the same quality or good. As consumers,we become frustrated or overly concerned from whether we can afford the good to how much is left of the good.
ReplyDelete