Should the Government Regulate the Economy? The free market approach in economic decision-making is based on private ownership of properties and resources, there is no government involvement, whereas the command approach describes a situation in which resources are jointly or publicly owned, everything is government owned. Be that as it may, the key to a successful economy lies somewhere in between these two types of economic systems. In a command economy income and wealth is more evenly distributed, there is little unemployment and the economy experiences few boom/bust cycles. The profits are used for expanding production and the production of goods and services are planned to meet society's needs which means that consumers receive the basic necessities of life. But, since everything is publicly owned, often there are little or no incentives for the working class. Technological change and innovation are discouraged by the needs to meet production quotas and because of lack of incentives, low-quality goods are often produced. Inefficiency and widespread waste of scarce resources occur in production and because of planning, the economy is inflexible and slow to respond to economic changes. Also, income and wealth are controlled by the state and consumers are not offered a wide selection of goods and services. Given that everyone works for the good of the state, and the incentives given when you exceed your quota's is not that appealing, unrest among the working class is created. That is a harmful thing because if the working class is unhappy they may strike and cease production, causing an enormous economic crisis. If no goods are being produced, then the basic necessities are no longer available and the country can go into major economic hardships. In a free market approach too economic decision-making, there are several advantages. First, there is a great deal of individual freedom in the decision making process.