Socialism is the most beneficial form of Government for the welfare of it's people

"When speaking about "The people", you essentially mean the government, which consists of elected officials that represent the totality. The problem with government control of the economy is that it is unpredictable. In order to control the economy, government must use a lot of capital for maintenance, surveillance, and hundreds of other things. This in and of itself restricts the economy." -- It is proven, through incidents throughout history, namely the Great Depression, that when the government intercedes with the affairs of work that it's not that hard or destructive, obviously all those government run programs didn't do to bad because they pulled a country out of depression, even when money was almost non-existent. This was repeated throughout many countries in order to build the economy upward. This is a little bit of socialism, and renders your point of inefficiency and restrictions as worthless. When the people have control, which is the government through your analysis, they don't have limits, they don't have to compete, and therefore can create as much of whatever they wanted or for what was needed. This can also drive quality up because this system would remove the urge to cut corners and make more money because it's for the benefit of the people, not to undercut a competitor. "In addition, the government cannot respond fast enough to public wants. Limitation of production can lead to severe market failures and depressions because the self-correcting factors of the market cannot act when restricted by the government." -- As was proved above, there is no limitation, the Government doesn't have to compete with anyone and can produce what is needed. Responding fast enough wouldn't be an issue. the groups of people that oversee production in certain areas deal with it, and thus there is always someone watching over it. This renders the rest of your argument moot. "I believe that the government should take a minimal regulatory role economically. Having a free market is the TRUE method of putting the market in the hands of the people. There is no need for constant government regulation for production. A free market has all the benefits you stated with none of the side effects." -- I argue that the minimal regulatory role is the path to exploitation. Socialism's definition is control in the people's hands, Free Market is designed not at putting itself in the people's hands, but is tailored toward those that can undercut and have money. Free Market is about maximizing profit, not being the most beneficial for the people. "To cite an example, the American economy is the strongest in the world so far because of capitalism. Countries aiming for socialism all fell short." -- The American economy isn't even completely capitalist, it's actually got elements of socialism in it, a mixed economy. The big businesses in America don't want government regulation until they need government help for rules that benefit them and so on. If you can provide me with evidence that states that Socialisms fall sort, then I'll believe you. I feel you'd be hard pressed to find a true capitalist or socialist country on this planet.