Different Economic models and results

[AntiochusIII]

I hate to say it, but Finland, and to a lesser degree Sweden, have socialism down pat. It works for them. It's not an easy system to use, as you can see by the failing French Economy.

Capitalisms advantages lay in its being the "natural" system. It's what people are inclined to do when the state is not enforcing some other kind of system, therefore it is just self-perpetuating economic goodness when done right.

That leads to a dangerous road in which Capitalism as it was meant to be once dominated America from around 1870s-1900s: the one which was accompanied by the social Darwinism idea and, as a result, made lives for millions of Americans horrible, put the nation in several minor crisis (and a major one around the early 1890s), allowed police brutality against American citizens, fostered the "unconcerned" and individualistic climate of American opinions, and, in conclusion, wasn't very nice. Only the moralistic, "superior" Progressive movement managed to began change, and only the sweeping New Deal era and FDR's leadership closed away much of the old wounds. According to the classical theism tradition, and Hobbes and a bunch of others in the Enlightenment tradition, humans are naturally inclined to be evil. By their conclusion, a completely free economy is really not different from an anarchy.

Adam Smith's work isn't flawless. Marx noticed that, quite clearly, even if his own theories aren't any better.

For me, my opinion on the economic system has yet to be formalized. Being raised in capitalistic economies only, even if one of them was utterly, thoroughly corrupted and oligarchic while the other (America) is not really that impressively successful, I could not vouch blindly for capitalism. Having not lived in socialist (referring only to the economy) economies before, I could not vouch blindly for socialism either.