Democratic Socialism (Pro) vs. Free-Market Capitalism (Con)

While it is obvious that the Pro displays a good understanding of economics, the Pro is still obligated by burden of proof to present why a democratic socialist model is superior to a free market capitalist system which the Con has obviously been unable to substantiate as I will demonstrate below."The Con makes a very good point when he says that the United States is a mixed economy, and I apologize for the semantic error on my part when I referred to "the free market system" as a whole- I recognize that it would have been more accurate to say "the predominantly free-market economic system" (Of the USA) . However, I still maintain that free market policies are predominantly responsible for the banking crisis leading up to the 2008 crash:"It isn't a semantic error. You have provided factually incorrect and misleading information. The United States is as I have stated earlier in the previous round, nowhere near a free market system. It is a mixed economy where the United States Federal Government heavily regulates both the private and public sectors of it's economy.An article published by the reputable Economist describes my point entirely on how completely driven away the United State's economy is from any Laissez-faire model of capitalism. "Two forces make American laws too complex. One is hubris. Many lawmakers seem to believe that they can lay down rules to govern every eventuality. Examples range from the merely annoying (eg, a proposed code for nurseries in Colorado that specifies how many crayons each box must contain) to the delusional (eg, the conceit of Dodd-Frank that you can anticipate and ban every nasty trick financiers will dream up in the future). Far from preventing abuses, complexity creates loopholes that the shrewd can abuse with impunity" - The Economist [S1]"Therefore, it is an overstatement to say that the US government failed to set proper interest rates"It is not an overstatement it is a fact. The Federal governments policies were responsible for the chain of events that led to risky lending and irresponsible lending on the part of Wall Street and it's subsidiaries. If proper interest rates had been maintained credit would have remained more stable and Wallstreet would not have had the ability to lend out risky amounts of capital. "The fact is, under a free-market dominated health care system, Americans spend far more for a far worse service than the Swedes. But how can this be, when the 'invisible hand' of competition should drive prices down and care standards up, when rival firms must compete for customers?"The Con once again displays a lack of understanding as to how the American health care system works. The comparison here is faulty. The United State's health care system is hardly a free market in any sense of the term and to compare it to a socialist model like Sweden is a false dichotomy. Therefore the comparison to Sweden is not only incorrect but irrelevant. To provide proof of my claim I have provided an article from the United State's Department of Justice which thoroughly analyzes the serious challenges the United State's is facing due to a completely over regulated and mismanaged health care system. "Health care is subject to extensive regulation at both the federal and the state level, much of which "arose haphazardly." [S2]Conclusion:As shown through this round of my argument it is clear that the Pro's understanding of American economics is incorrect and the arguments he has presented are fallacious in some portions. Sources:1. http://www.economist.com...2. http://www.justice.gov...