What confuses me the most about your post is the implied exclusivity. You say "Capitalism, good. Socialism, bad." Isn't this a false dichotomy?
Couldn't both be good?
What's to say that there is only one strictly good or even strictly best form of economic policy? Why can't both solutions produce good results if applied properly? And why can't a mix of the two be even better? Why is any dilution of pure capitalism viewed as bad, even though there are clearly situations where pure capitalism produces sub-optimal results (e.g., in the sale of medications. The Modern Consumer has shown a frightful inability to understand medical issues... look at the pervasiveness of the myth that vitamin C keeps you from getting a cold).
It's sort of like religion, in that it's clear that there isn't an obviously superior social structure that falls out of one specific religion. It's not like Christians are inherently the most noble with their own or others as opposed to, say, the Jewish.
From my biased point of view, of course, capitalism is good and socialism is bad.
This is not just a matter of belief about utilitarian outcome(Note this is based on somewhat imperfect knowledge about economics), but also based in part on my ethical philosophy as a libertarian.
Now, I don't think the medical market in America really represent pure capitalism or at least anything close to it. There are lot of regulations, some social welfare, and legal monopolies.
I don't believe that people in the free market will alway have some magical access to perfect information(I don't believe in the idea of perfect competition).
However, it doesn't mean that consumers will have no access to reliable information source. It may be that civic medical organizations may pop up to fill in the blank. They would probably be aligned toward consumers interest as the board is made of medical consumers.
In other words, think "Consumer Report", for medicine.
It is also very possible that medical companies would form their own regulatory board and approval process to enhance their own reputation. They would compete with other medical licensing system.
I don't know at all the "correct" institutional system that would have exists in the free market that would have performed information gathering functions, abritation, and other that protect and serve consumers as a counterbalance to the possible misdeeds of private firms and individuals.
But I am willing to bet that it would be better than the politicized medical industry that we have right now. In fact, I rather have some responsibility in choosing doctors rather than having some dude at the top of a government agency deciding who my doctor should be.
It depends largely on how you define "capitalism" and "socialism". Defined such that the US is capitalist while Sweden is socialist (in 2009), the systems are not very different in the first place -- at that point, you're discussing the details, not economic systems. To get a meaningful distinction, you have to move them to the extremes, but when you do that, someone will cry foul and say that's not what they mean by [capitalism|socialism].
Trying to pin down exact concrete meanings is somewhat pointless in an economic policy discussion. They are conducted at such a high level that it's often difficult to get more than a few concrete examples in.
But there are a surprisingly large number of people people, here on HackerNews even, who decry Sweden as a socialist country that is destined for failure. My observation is: when people talk about "Capitalism" they tend to talk about the more extreme aspect of it. When they talk about "Socialism", I've observed they tend to be talking about "our current form of government and onwards."
My observation is: when people talk about "Capitalism" they tend to talk about the more extreme aspect of it. When they talk about "Socialism", I've observed they tend to be talking about "our current form of government and onwards."
The thing that libertarians often forget is that libertarianism has never worked in the real world.
(For a certain value of "worked", anyway. I'm mostly just playing off the same argument as applied to communism, though.)
Their ability in a given domain is limited by the average knowledge of that domain in the market. When that knowledge is high, the ability to intelligently allocate resources approaches optimal. When the domain is not well understood, it can be extremely sub-optimal.
I assume capitalism is about free market, capital accumulation, private property, and not letting the state get involved in regulating the economy.
Socialism, I assume intervention, equality among men no matter what, social welfare, and central planning. I also included fascism there, because fascism to me have only super fiscal difference on the surface and by large and the same in substance.
Couldn't both be good?
What's to say that there is only one strictly good or even strictly best form of economic policy? Why can't both solutions produce good results if applied properly? And why can't a mix of the two be even better? Why is any dilution of pure capitalism viewed as bad, even though there are clearly situations where pure capitalism produces sub-optimal results (e.g., in the sale of medications. The Modern Consumer has shown a frightful inability to understand medical issues... look at the pervasiveness of the myth that vitamin C keeps you from getting a cold).
It's sort of like religion, in that it's clear that there isn't an obviously superior social structure that falls out of one specific religion. It's not like Christians are inherently the most noble with their own or others as opposed to, say, the Jewish.