I wasn't letting Wiki do the talking, I've taken nothing from there.
These country's have more pressing issues to see to than which economic system they adhere too, and you know it. I'll point you to China that was one of the poorest country's in the start of the '80's, as they've moved away from socialism and towards capitalistic and free market policies they're one of the major forces in the world economy.
But what's the point of starting a debate if you don't define the terms of the debate?
China in 1949 was a backwards feudal society. I would expect it to start growing like crazy when it started to industrialize.
Only people who live in the fantasy world of pseudo-economics come up with half the stuff you say. There's always going to be a mix of capitalism and socialism, if you're going to argue between the two then you take the two fundamental ideals
No, I would say most people in history or political science that look at historical and real-world examples rather than math and abstract models think that most economists these days are full of ****. There's plenty of people that think like me, and we've seen a huge backlash in academia against the discipline of economics already in the past two years or so.
Well if there's always going to be a mix between the two than we're on the same page. But I certainly wouldn't want to live in a 'purely' capitalist country unless I was one of the very few wealthy. Without "socialist" principles incorporated into the economy, the vast majority of the population lives in poverty. This is what the western world looked like before World War II. Since we've incorporated a larger state and created 'welfare societies,' the standard of living for the populace as a whole has rised drastically. Sure, you didn't get the huge billionaire magnates in the Bretton Woods era like you did during the Gilded Age (1870-1929), but the vast majority of the population was much better off.
Won't allocate resources efficiently. And that banker who earns 7 figures pays 6 figures in tax, which provides a **** of a lot for society than your average person. Britain was actually a very strong manufacturing economy before the trade unions killed it, that is why we're a financial centre now. Production is our only goal, economic growth is defined as the increase in productive capacity. If your economy produces nothing, you make no money, if you have no money you have none to spread around anyway. But wait, let me guess, some of what I just wrote appears in economics textbooks so it's all false and my arguments suck, right?
As far as the banker goes, you're assuming that the financial activity is sustainable and good for the economy in the long-run, and clearly, both the US and UK went through unsustainable asset bubbles in the 90's and 00's. Don't think in terms of what the banker 'does' for society, that's a poor way to think of it (although if we do want to take that route, the banker does nothing for society, he pushes paper, and sure he pays more taxes, but I thought you think that's useless, and second, he benefits from a society and government that allows him to make that money ultimately at their expense). Think of the different type of society and economy that allows a banker to make that wealth, and whether or not it is sustainable in the long run.
Sweden has a welfare state that exists because of the capitalist economy driving it. Sweden is just as capitalist as the rest of Europe. Again, stop using poor country's as argument. Would you rather live in capitalist Haiti or socialist Haiti? The difference is negligible.
I wouldn't call Sweden "just as capitalist" as the rest of Europe, considering its tax rates. But as I've said before, it sounds like a nice place to live and the Scandinavian countries have the highest measures of well-being in the world. But certainly Sweden would be a nightmare scenario for you, wouldn't it? The high taxes for the wealthy? The healthcare system? The huge state? Also, it's not successful because of the capitalist economy driving it, its successful because of its resources and the success of its industries. That's why the capitalist economy driving Haiti isn't doing too well.
Why can't we bring in poor countries into the discussion? The vast majority of the world is poor, so why are we only allowed to use the few examples you want? Let's compare Cuba to El Salvador, for example...despite the trade embargoes and the amazing amounts of difficulty it faced from transforming its 1950's planatation US-dependent economy, it has the second best healthcare and education systems behind Costa Rica. I would way rather live in Cuba than in El Salvador, and I would way rather live in Cuba now than before the revolution (unless I was one of the small number of extremely wealthy American elites there). As far as Haiti goes, Haiti will probably be poor no matter what, but would it be better off if it was more "socialist?" We don't know. Would it be better off if it used the most free-market oriented policies humanly possible? We don't know, but judging by what you've said, you think so, because "the most free-market oriented solution is always best," right?
But that's mixing both ideals. If we went strictly free market vs complete planned economy, the free market wins every time. (A)