Every one of those four is a mixed economy with significant central economic planning and regulation. Without substantial oversight, capitalism tends to degrade into private monopolies with feudalistic tendencies over time. Like I said, it's an idealistic system which looks great until actual people are involved. Then you have to either modify it past anything but a spiritual similarity, or drown in the neoliberal fountain.

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every one of those four is a mixed economy with significant central economic planning and regulation.

Every one of those four economies are democratic capitalist economies. What is mixed?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

central economic planning and regulation

The fact that every successful "capitalist" economy is heavily regulated speaks to the efficacy of pure capitalism.

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is no such thing as pure capitalism. If you're talking about capitalism without regulations, that is called anarcho - capitalism and it doesn't actually exist anywhere at the moment.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh huh, the old "Real capitalism had never been tried" cliché

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am giving you examples of perfectly functioning nations under capitalism, you're replying one sentence nonsense. This conversation is over

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

I am responding to your points with the same logic you initiated. You won't acknowledge that you're operating on a double standard where communism is a fundamentally idealistic and flawed whenever actually implemented, but it's different for capitalism because reasons. This conversation never started.