Some Societies Allocate Their Resources Using The Command Ap

Some Societies Allocate Their Resources Using The Command Approach

Some societies allocate their resources using the ‘command’ approach. Give one example of when you feel that this type of approach is the best. Explain in detail. The U.S. uses a combination of the market price approach and the force (taxes) approach. Why doesn’t it just use one or the other to efficiently allocate resources? Explain your reasoning. Within the last 10 to 15 years the U.S. has allocated a tremendous amount of its resources to influence countries in the Middle East toward democracy. Much of these resources have come in the form of military interventions. Do you think that this has been an efficient allocation of resources? Explain. What is the opportunity cost in terms of other programs the U.S. could have spent its resources on? Be sure to identify those programs that you feel have suffered because of the use of funds for interventions in other countries. You are allocating quite a bit of your own resources toward your bachelor’s degree. What do you expect is the marginal benefit you get from these expenditures? Is it enough to equal or surpass the marginal cost? You may use $ amounts in your response. Give one example of a time when the marginal benefit you received from purchasing something was actually less than the marginal cost of what you purchased. Assume that you have your own business which has become quite successful but only after several years of extremely hard work and commitment. Do you feel that the government should have the right to take larger and larger portions of your income as you become wealthier from your business’ success? Explain your response in detail.

Paper For Above instruction

Resource allocation within a society is a fundamental aspect of economic organization, and different societies adopt various mechanisms to manage it effectively. The command approach, where a central authority makes decisions regarding production and distribution, is particularly suitable in certain contexts, especially where coordination and equitable distribution take precedence over efficiency. An exemplary scenario where the command approach is arguably the best is during national emergencies or wartime. During such periods, government directives to mobilize resources, produce military equipment, and allocate labor are crucial to ensure rapid and coordinated responses to threats, maintain national security, and support a collective effort. For instance, during World War II, the United States effectively employed a command approach to mobilize its economy. The government coordinated aspects of production, from aircraft manufacturing to rationing food supplies, to meet the war efforts efficiently. The centralized control helped align resources towards a common goal, showcasing the effectiveness of the command approach in crisis situations where decentralized decision-making might be too slow or fragmented (Kennedy, 1999).

However, the United States typically relies on a hybrid model combining market forces and fiscal policies such as taxes for resource allocation. Relying solely on market price mechanisms can lead to inefficiencies when externalities, public goods, or merit goods are involved, requiring government intervention. Conversely, pure command approaches might suppress innovation, create inefficiencies, and foster corruption. The reason for blending these methods is to harness the efficiency of market mechanisms while leveraging government interventions for addressing market failures (Mankiw, 2020). This hybrid approach aims to maximize societal welfare by balancing efficiency with social equity, controlling externalities through taxes, and regulating industries when necessary.

In recent history, the United States has allocated significant resources toward promoting democracy in the Middle East through military interventions, diplomatic efforts, and economic aid. This strategic deployment of resources raises questions about efficiency. Military interventions can be costly, both financially and in terms of human lives, and the outcomes are often uncertain. While some argue these efforts promote stability and democratic governance—potentially leading to long-term benefits such as regional stability and reduced terrorism—others contend that the costs outweigh the benefits. For example, studies have shown that interventions like the Iraq War resulted in substantial expenditures, estimated to be over $2 trillion, with mixed results in terms of democratization and stability (Cárdenas & Hartz-Pween, 2017). These high costs suggest that such resource allocation may have been inefficient if the intended democratic outcomes were not fully realized, and the instability may have persisted or worsened, indicating misallocation from an economic perspective.

The opportunity costs of such interventions are considerable. Funds spent on military operations and nation-building could have been diverted to domestic programs such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, or research and development. For instance, investment in education and healthcare has the potential to generate higher long-term economic growth and social welfare, which could arguably serve national interests more sustainably than military expenditures (Stiglitz, 2019). Consequently, the focus on foreign interventions may have led to underfunding of these vital domestic sectors, possibly hampering overall societal progress.

From an individual's perspective, allocating personal resources to education involves weighing the marginal benefit against the marginal cost. The marginal benefit generally manifests as improved earning potential, personal development, and increased societal contribution. Over time, completing a bachelor’s degree can significantly enhance employability and income levels—sometimes resulting in a higher lifetime earning potential, which suggests that the marginal benefit exceeds the initial costs (Beatty & Fothergill, 2018). However, there are instances where the marginal benefit from a purchase might be less than the marginal cost. For example, buying an expensive gadget that quickly becomes obsolete might provide minimal long-term benefit relative to its purchase price. The marginal benefit diminishes as the value received from additional units decreases, highlighting the importance of cost-benefit analysis in personal decision-making.

As a business owner, taxation policies become particularly relevant. Wealthier entrepreneurs might argue that increasing taxation on their success discourages innovation and investment. A progressive tax system aims to redistribute income to fund public goods and services, which benefits society at large. Nevertheless, excessive tax burdens can undermine incentives for entrepreneurship and economic growth. Many suggest that a balanced approach, ensuring sufficient revenue for government functions without penalizing success, is preferable (Piketty, 2014). From an ethical standpoint, individuals who have invested substantial effort to build successful businesses might justifiably feel entitled to retain a larger share of their income, while also recognizing the societal benefits of contributions through taxes.

In conclusion, resource allocation strategies vary widely depending on contextual needs and societal values. The command approach excels in emergency situations requiring rapid and coordinated response, while the blend of market forces and government interventions tends to produce more balanced and efficient outcomes under normal circumstances. The debate overforeign vs domestic resource utilization, individual benefits versus costs, and taxation echoes broader societal concerns about fairness, efficiency, and long-term prosperity. Striking the right balance between these approaches is essential for fostering sustainable and equitable growth.

References

• Beatty, C., & Fothergill, S. (2018). The changing shape of the education market and its implications. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 255-271.
• Cárdenas, M., & Hartz-Pween, R. (2017). American foreign policy and the costs of intervention. Global Politics Review, 8, 45-62.
• Kennedy, D. (1999). Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. Oxford University Press.
• Mankiw, N. G. (2020). Principles of Economics (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2019). People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent. W.W. Norton & Company.