The pertinent question that has always been poised whenever politicians discuss about the economy is whether, on one hand, the reigns of the economy should be held by the political hands, whereby it’s upon the state to prioritize needs and wants of a nation then subsequently mobilize resources to satisfy those needs and wants and on the other hand, if the same needs and wants should be prioritized by the private sector and subsequently be left upon them to mobilize resources while being motivated by their private interest.
Government intervention has normally been resisted by capitalists by claiming such intervention come with negative effects. Such negative impacts result in; reduced product innovation and competition, reduced hard work amongst the workers, decreased foreign investment, reduced market efficiency, a decreased variety of consumer goods and services.
On the other end, Marxists advocate for an increase in government intervention and a decreased market economy in order to check the ever widening economic inequality between the bourgeoisies and proletariats, reduced social benefits and welfare, environmental degradation, disproportional political influence by bourgeoisies, exploitation of proletariats by capital owners, distorted investment priorities. Such defects can only be cured through politicizing the economy in order to cure the shortcomings of market economies.
Democracy would dictate that either a system of political intervention or private control or a mixture of both should carry the day as long as the system enhances the satisfaction of the needs of a nation.