The problem with both of these terms is that they are completely arbitrary. Sure, there is is theoretical definition of each, but no economy actually matches up with these ideals. The U.S. calls itself a capitalist nation, but there are more socialist style institutions and political maneuvering than self-declared socialist countries. Isn't it Denmark that's considered socialist, but only its forestry industry is actually regulated? Whereas in the U.S., there are countless economic sectors and policies that would certainly fit the definition of socialism.
You cant really have a blend of them. They are complete opposites for anyone who knows what they are talking about.
While you certainly can't have one particular industry that's both socialist and capitalist, you can regulations over capitalist enterprises. This is sort of the root of monopoly laws, which I don't really consider to be socialist. I see it as allowed capitalism and the free market to better thrive. Simply put, neither system in its pure theoretical form will result in a viable economic structure. Pure government regulation will stagnate growth and development that would normally be advanced by individuals, and a completely free market will lead to another era of "robber barons" and "railroad tycoons."
I'm not totally for a 100% free market. Things like roads, water, land, education, and health care should be rights... not privileges, in my opinion.
Nothing is for free in this world. All of that would be free on the backs of slaves, but with emancipation, that's impossible.
Capitalism works just fine. Socialism works just fine. Out of which context is the thing. A free market is not truly 'free'. As in, certain things that are required for economic or practical survival need to be regulated. If it were completely free, it would be called a Decentralized system. But flaws arrive. If all the farmers produce cotton, they make a lot of money, but they starve. If they produce all corn, they make no money, but eat. So the government implements quotas that have to be reached for both cotton and corn. So the farmer eats and makes money. And look around, we see socialism all around us. The biggest factor are unions. They are socialist to the extreme. Everybody is paid the same, everybody is the same and nobody gets rewarded for individual skill or effort. It's all based on seniority. So we have the young, highly intelligent hard working kid in the mine who's been working there for 5 years. And we have the old, idiotic lazy bum who just screws off all day. He's been working there 20 years. Who gets that supervisor job? The old lazy bum. Tell me, is that fair? He's produced half as much as the kid, in four times the time span. I find unions ineffective at everything but half slave labor for idiots with an IQ of 70.
I'm not totally for a 100% free market. Things like roads, water, land, education, and health care should be rights... not privileges, in my opinion.
The thing is, when you say land, in terms of economics, that includes goods like minerals and all the resources we take from land itself, which could be oil, lumber etc. If you mean each person should have their own place to live, then yes, I agree.
You cant really have a blend of them. They are complete opposites for anyone who knows what they are talking about. There either needs to be a socialist or capitalist basis of economic production. You cannot have both the workers control the means of production, and have capitalist bosses do as well!
Go get an economics degree. Of course you can have a blend. The fundamental problem under which every market in the world operates, trying to solve does not, and can never change.
The key difference between socialism and the free market is the allocation of resources. There would be a drop in efficiency and a disrpoportionate increase in the oppurtunity cost of production. In the free market however, complete deregulation leaves the market open to monopolies- worse than the situation we find ourselves in now. The blend would be the allocation of resources and regulation. As for Marxian economic theory, it has been mostly disregarded as it's too flawed.
Take the UK as an example. We have free housing schemes (council housing), universal health care, free education and free food and water for the very needy. These are certainly merit goods and would not be provided by the free market, yet undoubtedly the UK is a capitalist nation, thus showing how there can be a blend.
