Wouldn't a mixed economy be better for everyone?

We have had a mixed economy for many years. Ever since Roosevelt in the 30s we have been going back and forth between the two.

What we have in America resembles capitalism on the surface, but it's a centrally planned, centrally controlled economy. You can call it a mixed economy of sorts, but pure capitalism is quite different. History shows us that (nearly) pure capitalism is the most effective way of distributing wealth among the population. Centrally planned economies typically fail every 10-20 years, and each time this happens the lower class becomes larger until eventually it becomes a majority and the state collapses from it's own weight. History is on the side of pure capitalism. All other systems are proven to impoverish more people. If you're a humanitarian, you're a capitalist. The modern mega corporations are decidedly anti-capitalist. They prefer this current system of plundering the population through taxation in order to receive corporate welfare. This is very typical of socialism. The people are taxed into poverty in order to keep the government run monopolies solvent. We already have a mixed economy, that's why it sucks so bad.

Up until 100 years ago economists were very much interested in how politics and the economy worked together. This changed when economists started to focus more on economic models and divorced themselves from politics because they didn't see the connection, they assumed if you government left the economy alone it would prosper. This proved to be false. In the 1970s when the economy started to lose ground from the economic boost of WW2 people started to ask the government to step in. This is when political economics then became an issue again for economists. They realized that there was a gap between abstract models of economics and politics from the actual behaviour of policies and economics. When Nixon took out the gold standard companies took advantage like OPEC did two years later when they fixed the price of petroleum in the first half of the 1970s. This proved that leaving a free-market alone without restriction and regulation proved to be fatal. People are just greedy by nature and having one (old) model for economics does nothing for the people and the prosperity of a nation.

Even a little slavery is a bad thing. We should be a free nation (capitalism) and end the inhumane practice of mandated socialism forever. Seriously, would you be ok with a system in which you were a free man 4 days of the week, but 3 days a week you were a slave? You shouldn't be, that should outrage you. If it doesn't then you are just a coward afraid to stand up for your basic human rights.

Remember how they justified slavery? They would say "blacks are not capable of taking care of themselves, slavery is a good thing because they have a good home, food on the table, and somebody to take care of them". This is the exact same thing the socialists say "you are too stupid or lazy to save for retirement or pay for health insurance, so we'll force you to do it at gun point, because we know better than you".

Slavery is slavery, and it is evil. It does not matter if the slave master is a plantation owner or an IRS agent, it's the same thing and it needs to be abolished.

We have a Mixed Free-Market system and with minor differences, so does almost everyone, including China. It is a fairy tale to say that our system has not evolved since these two 18th & 19th century theories were first presented. We eliminated debtors prisons (1840) broke up monopolies (1890) income taxes (1913), enacted fair labor standards, securities and exchange laws, and prohibited child labor (1934), added social security (1939), medicare (1965) and prohibited discrimination in hiring (1968). The system even evolved considerably when the world's governments decided to bail out the banks in unison in 2009.

"going in the middle" would basically mean that private businesses would be allowed to exist but most of it would be regulated by government control effectively making government indispensable and totalitarian, exactly like socialism. Right now America is "in the middle" between socialism and capitalism and it is called Keynesian economics; it is responsible for the foolish CEO's of failing companies still being able to function.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are sincere with this question. Here is a simple way to explain why that will never work:

Capitalism holds that each person has the opportunity to be the best they can be. Socialism seeks to punish those who attempt to be the best they can be and reward lazy moochers who want to depend on nanny state government to rob the productive to fund that loser leftist lib lifestyle.

So let's suppose those who favor capitalism want a 0% tax rate on the productive, useful working man and woman. Let's further suppose that the socialists want a 50% tax rate on the productive, useful working man and woman to fund the lifestyle of lazy loser lib mooches.

If you compromise and agree to a 25% tax rate to fund loser lib moocher lifestyles, you will have the productive, useful people resenting government because they are taking our money to fund moochers, and you will have the moochers mad because the socialists didn't steal enough money from the productive, useful people to fund their moocher lifestyle adequately.

The only sane solution to this problem is to send those who favor a socialist type government to the socialist nation of their choice. I will gladly pay for one last handout (a one-way plane ticket) to those useless moochers to rid the country of them. This country was founded on the principles of a capitalist economy. If you don't like it, move to a country that espouses your view.

90% laissez faire capitalism, 10% socialism works for me. Even as someone on the right, I am not too stubborn to admit that we are better off having the government control a few things. I would not really want to see police and highway departments trying to compete with each other and strong-arming their competitors...now, that is not really "socialism", however that is government, and we do need government for some things...we cannot have anarchy.

At least a few of the very rich (including corporations) might suffer under a more socialist or regulated economy, especially if "suffering" is defined as having less money.

Pure socialism doesnt work (see the ex-USSR).

Pure capitalism doesn't work (See the US of 1900 -- or at least it worked for the robber barons, but not the rest of society).

A well-regulated capitalism works great. I think it's where that "middle ground" is that most of us disagree. What "die-hard" capitalist never seem to take into account is the "tragedy of the commons".