How come people think capitalism beats a mixed economy, yet all the mixed economies do better?

Capitalism is the most organic economic philosophy. It was judged to be impractical and impossible in application virtually from the get go. Because of it's mathematical structure that inhibits producing wealth without wealth to do it, it inherently favors the wealthier end of the scale. While it doesn't inhibit the pursuit of wealth, it certainly does nothing to make it attainable really, and virtually guarantees a monopolistic stranglehold once you are there. This fundamental tendency towards imbalance was the basis for much criticism from the get go. The thing is, that imbalance is totally, mathematically inherent. It has nothing to do with political philosophy or human behavior or anything like that.

The thing is, the tendency towards this imbalance was recognized, safeguards were put in place. Capitalism in a laissez faire economy was largely regarded as a guarantee that at points, it would cause collapse and virtual monopolization that would require government intervention. Evidenced by 3 fairly major depressions in 140 years, each justifying gov't stimulus (we shock hearts when they stop, what's with all the childish crying about stimulus? They don't appear to be complaints about the how, but the fact that it's being done), and anti-trust problems.

I'm prattling on, capitalism, or any ism really, exists only in textbooks. Further, I think it's the only place it should. It's like pure democracy, it's just a legitimization of a might makes right attitude. This was recognized, safeguards were put in place. We tend to forget the US was pretty much the boldest and riskiest eco-political "experiment" in the history of mankind.

There is no such thing as mixed economies, but you all have had one since the 20's? If anyone can tell me how that post makes one single iota of sense, I'd be grateful.

A mixed economy would be much freer. A pure free market cannot serve us well, but a free market driven by incentives and operating over a wider range of conditions gives us more of a free market, and a freer market, than can otherwise obtain.

Our society is unable to do without government, and the attempts to reduce government simply by cutting government always result in more government. Carrying out a higher proportion of the concerns of government by incentive, rather than by the more usual means of intervention, is the most effective way we can reduce the size and cost of government.

we've not got unfastened industry capitalism. With our leviathan of a central authority, we are some distance from unfastened markets. What we've is an abusive crony capitalism device that suffers from incestuous relationships between politicians and firms. i'm a libertarian, yet i've got not got a concern looking uncomplicated floor over some regulation, public products, and investment. I help unfastened industry techniques mutually with getting rid of agricultural subsidies on account that they often circulate to massive agribusinesses on the cost of increasing international poverty.

Winston Churchill had a great quote: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

I do agree with you, however, that government spending has largely been out of control for decades. That's not inherently due to capitalism though. A true capitalist seeks to run a surplus.

Are you on crack?

We haven't had free market capitalism since the 1920's, and up until that time we beat the rest of the world hands down.

There's no such thing as a "mixed economy." That's just another name for fascism.

If the rest of the world is doing so great, why do they all need us to spend money protecting them with our military?

We've been sliding into mediocrity ever since the bankers began to dilute our currency and manipulate our markets.

Capitalism is imperfect as all Ecomnomic therories are. One thing for certain is we have watched Socailism fail time and agian in history as our Economy grew stronger. The "Mixed" Economies your talking about are all dependent on the American Consumer buying widgets. Our Capitalism system is fine what's not fine and needs to be changed is the laws in banking, reporting profits, and enforcement of current laws. The Tax system is out of whack to. Bush's system is to easy on high earners and Obama's will be too high. The High earners are the intervators of Economic growth and when we raise the fed tax to 50% or above on them in the long run it will hurt everyone.

You mean mixed economies such as Iceland (bankrupt), Sweden (on the verge of bankruptcy), France (on the verge of bankruptcy and social collapse) or Germany (on the verge of bankruptcy and social collapse)?

Mix? Yes. And before socialism started becoming mainstream, we had a heck of a mix.

You're argument is the same as saying: "Hey, coffee is better with a little cream and sugar, so let me put in a cup of cream and a cup of sugar and it will be better!"

Sorry, doesn't work.

Because the people that tend to advocate for capitalism don't usually actually understand the differences between the terms.

I don't think any economy is better than Capitalism. Name one country. France? England? Germany? China? India? Nope.