The Social-Reformed approach had two main weaknesses-almost complete denial of the potentials of the economy to self-regulation and the emphasis of the redistributive aspects of reproduction in the peak of the actual production. The ability of the economy to self -regulation was also denied on the grounds that the subjects are moving private, interpreting interests. The adjustment of private motives was dictated by the policy of social regulation. Thus, the logical result of the implementation of social reformism in practice was a free or involuntary restriction or belittling the role of private economic incentives.
Social reformers saw in state regulation only or primarily positive points, ignoring the negative. Meanwhile, there were plenty of. The fact that state intervention imposes restrictions on the action of market forces is not only good, but also evil.
The economic policy of the state deformed market incentives, and thereby spontaneously emerging proportions between consumption and accumulation, savings and investments, profitability of various sectors of the economy, and t. p. At the same time, government intervention did not always accurately capture and was focused on stimulating objective trends in socio-economic development. The goals of social policy often conflict in order to ensure maximum efficiency of the economy. For the known limits, the use of economic regulators did not give positive, but negative results: instead of giving the economy more control and balance, gave rise to imbalances, led to the suppression or deformation of economic incentives. Thus, subsidizing investment (direct or using tax benefits) caused an increase in fundimivity and reduction of capital returns, encouraging the employment of labor stimulated excessive employment and reducing the growth rates of labor productivity, restriction of “excessive” competition led to artificial monopolization.