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

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:"During the dot.com bubble which saw moderate crash in tech investments; Alan Greenspan the Federal Reserve Chairman of the United States on September 11, 2001 dropped interest rates to a meager 1% to promote more lending practices through wallstreet and various other credit services. This resulted in a staggering abundance of cheap credit."Whilst the Con is absolutely correct in stating Greenspan's decision to lower federal reserve interest rates, he neglects to mention that the interest rate was lowered gradually, did not reach said meager 1% until 2003, and almost immediately began rising, until reaching a very healthy rate of 5% in the summer of 2006. Therefore, it is an overstatement to say that the US government failed to set proper interest rates, and certainly to say that an interest rate of 1%, rising again after less than a year, and in use over three years before the banking crisis started, can be significantly responsible for causing it."1. Sub Prime Mortgages (SPMs)2. Collatoralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)3. Frozen Credit Markets (FCMs)4. Credit Default Swaps (CDSs)"As the Con earlier said, ""Free market" essentially means that producers are free to enter a line of business and sell their products at whatever price they can charge; meanwhile consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept." In these 4 Financial Products I believe that we have seen an instance where free market policies are completely innapropriate, as they allow for the 'producers' to create and trade incredibly risky and complex products: If the financial sector had been subject to more stringent regulation, these products would not have been allowed to exist in the first place, and the world would not have suffered the huge banking crisis that it did in 2008. However, government agencies, in the period leading up to 2008 were being lobbied strenously by the financial sector. It is not only in the financial sector that free market policies are innapropriate; In the healthcare industry also, free market policies have proved to be disastrous: In the USA ,one of the very few developed nations to still have a privatized healthcare system, the average cost of healthcare per person is $8,604, while in Sweden, under a nationalised system, it is $3,432 (USD PPP). Yet Sweden still manages to have a higher life expectancy, number of physicians per capita, number of nurses per capita, whilst the USA boasts an infant mortality rate almost twice that of Sweden. Most disturbing, in economic terms, is despite the fact that the system is privatised, the US government spends a higher proportion of its revenue on healtchare than Sweden.The fact is, under a free-market dominated healthcare 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?Because sick people are worth more to health companies than healthy people. From a healthcare company owner's perspective, the more people remain dependent on the service, the more profit he will make. This is why a socialist system of healthcare (the nation pooling its resources through taxes, for the benefit of all), as shown by Sweden is far more effective- It is run in the interests of keeping an entire nation healthy and productive citizens, not making a profit on the back of people's ilnesses. Sources: http://www.tradingeconomics.com...http://www.forbes.com...http://www.statisticbrain.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...P.S. For the sake of clarity which the Con has provided regarding his own case, I shall do the same- Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens take part. It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Socialism is where a community puts it resources together and work for the common good, not just for each individual's own benefit. Democratic Socialism is an economic system whereby citizens put their resources together in the form of taxes, which are received and spent by a government operating under a system of democracy.