system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: “Capitalism vs Socialism” is an outdated debate.

Hi everyone. This is something I’ve been pondering for quite a while.

Questioning the “system” is an intellectual practice as old as civilization. But I take issue with one that humanity has deeply engaged with for the last sentry. It has been a driver of civil strife, institutional change, and war for the 20th and 21st centuries.

“Capitalism vs Socialism” has been an interesting debate, but given how many modern economies look, it may be time to put it to rest for the laymen. 

But first, I will give the Merriam-Webster definitions of each.

**Capitalism**
> an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

**Socialism**
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

So here’s the first problem. It’s difficult to find a modern example of a nation who’s economic system does not have aspects of both. These tend to be labeled “mixed economies”. Today they are the dominant economic systems (at least among democratic nations). Sure countries can lean in a particular direction, but that doesn’t change my point. 

Second problem is that there is more variance in how countries design and run its institutions than there are differences in capitalism and socialism. There is no rule book that countries go to in deciding how to run an economy. For example, the United States, Nordic Countries (Sweden, Finland, etc), and Japan are broadly considered capitalist. However, they all have vastly different structures and one could never say that they are the same in the slightest. Socialism has many different models that happen to fit under its umbrella, including communism and fascism. This because the common traits of capitalism and socialism are pretty vague. 

So why is this still such a prevalent issue today? Well part of it is recent history. The 20th century saw such an insane amount of political shifts and conflicts. One of the biggest of them all was the Cold War between the Soviet Union (now simply Russia) and the US. But my question isn’t about history. It’s about public debate today.

The public is the problem with this debate. Evaluating institutions and economic structures for effectiveness and practicality tends to not be easy to explain in a tweet or Instagram post. What is easy to explain to the average Joe is morality. 

Let’s take tax policy for example. Let’s say I wanted to argue why the US should increase the top marginal tax rate. 

I make one argument saying “We are in a time of crisis right now and we need tax revenue, but increasing taxes on all Americans could make things worse for poorer Americans who have already had their spending power reduced significantly. This may lead to reducing consumption even more which will slow economic recovery and introduce a host quality-of-life issues. That lack of consumption could result in more business, small and large, struggling more and eventually failing due to a lack of revenue”

vs.

“Billionaires have stolen and hoarded the wealth of millions of Americans through the absolute exploitation of labor. Their greed is crippling the working man in these hard times. We must get back what they are owed.”

Before you say it, yes these would not be mutually exclusive statements in a real debate. That’s not my point. What I’m asking is which statement will more easily engage and fire up people?

The second answer most likely. And that’s the problem with Capitalism vs Socialism today. It’s really just a debate about Good vs Evil nowadays. Variances of the second answer don’t have to be logically sound so long as it’s emotionally charged and playing into people’s insecurities. Of course morals and virtues should always be a consideration, but examining complex, practical issues only through those lens is very dangerous.
gpt
Just because an economy is mixed that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a leaning. Mixed economies can be more or less capitalist. 

As such the debate isn't capitalism 100 percent vs socialism 100 percent, but 60:40 vs 40:60. 

It is entirely reasonable to argue for a 60:40, just as it is reasonable to argue for a 40:60, and that's what people are generally doing. 

Given that, how is the debate outdated, seeing as policies such as Medicare for all, could potentially change the balance, and are up for debate right now.