about countries that are socialist and capitalist in economy?
212549
Try searching for the area you want under "web" or go to Google Earth.
489450
the closest systems you will find are Sweden and I think Switzerland as these two countries hold a lot of referendums where people vote on major issues, which is the purest form of liberal democracy.
86932
Free enterprise economies was the term formerly used to refer to "free market" economies where individuals are allowed to form their own enterprises freely with the "laissez faire" policy.  This term was coined as a contrast to the "centrally planned economies" of the former USSR or Communist China, whose economic and social activities were all state-owned and state-controlled.  But that was before they both opened their economies to open trade.
372402
Until you said indvidual freedom, I would have said China-- communism almost sounds nice. But no nation has all of those things except the Kingdom of Heaven, which is eternal.
646883
Free enterprise\nor\nFind a communist utopia somewhere
80388
they are socialist democratic. it looks like capitalism has the best of them nowadays
332199
In theory, an economy, or economic system, that is a transition between capitalism and communism and is based on: (1) government, rather than individual, ownership of resources, (2) worker control of the government, such that workers, rather than capitalist, control capital and other productive resources, (3) income allocated on need rather than on resource ownership or contribution to production. In practice, socialism is a type of economy based on--(1) government ownership and control of the most crucial resources, like those for energy production, communication, transportation, and health care and (2) a heavy dose of central planning by government. \nAlthough socialism represents the theoretical transition from capitalism to communism, the primary goals of modern real world socialism are: (1) to correct the inefficiencies of market failures, (2) to obtain more equal wealth and income distributions, and (3) to equalize economic opportunities. To accomplish these goals, government exerts a significant amount of government control, while less than communism, more than capitalism.\nPerhaps more so than other economic systems, socialism comes in many different varieties. Some nations practice a form of socialism that comes very close to communism, with extensive government control. Socialism found in other nations has a distinctive capitalistic flavor, with a great deal of market activity.\n\nGovernment Ownership and Control\nA distinguishing characteristic of socialism is government ownership and control over key industries and resources. Government ownership and control generally begins with transportation, energy, and communication. Socialist governments generally view these industries and their associated resources as the ones most likely abused by private ownership.\nMore active socialist governments tend to exert greater control over other industries, such as health care, heavy manufacturing (such as steel production), and agricultural production. In the extreme, everything is owned and controlled by government, resulting in communism.\n\nCentral Planning\nGovernment ownership of resources and control of industries under socialism necessitates control of allocation decisions. This is often accomplished through central planning. While less extensive than found in communism, detailed plans are needed to allocate resources in the absence of market exchanges. And while such planning generally lacks the efficiency incentives found in markets, it can improve the efficiency if the markets would otherwise fall victim to failures.\nFor example, transportation systems are usually owned and controlled by governments under socialism due to the possible market failure of market control, especially the emergence of natural monopoly. \n\nA Mixed Economy\nSocialism occupies a large section of the spectrum of economic systems, bounded by a pure market economy on one end and a pure command economy on the other. Socialism tends to lay closer to the pure command economy of the spectrum, but it can also edge toward the pure market economy side dominated by capitalism.\nSocialism, like all other real world economic systems, is thus a mixed economy. Allocation decisions are undertaken by both governments and markets. Some socialistic nations rely more on governments and less on markets, while others rely a little more on markets and a little less on governments. But all rely on both to some degree.\n\nThe Politics of Socialism\nThe concept of socialism dates back almost to the beginnings of philosophical thought into the human prospect. Socialistic principles, for example, can be found in the works of Plato and the New Testament of the Christian Bible.\nOver the centuries socialism has been as closely aligned with political thinking as with economic analysis. It has formed the foundation of numerous political parties and helped inspire scores of revolutions. On the spectrum of political thinking, socialism is more likely embraced by liberals and
82824
I'm no expert but I did a degree in Business and have read a lot of international development literature...\n\nFirst I would ask if financial wealth is the important thing - and if so, when is a country seen as wealthy? If you look at GDP this doesn't show the distribution of wealth very well.\n\nMany richer countries have progressed up the ladder from mainly primary to secondary to tertiary to mainly service jobs. Now in the UK for example, the banking area is well known and a lot of money comes out of this service industry, whereas before many people were employed in coal mining or manufacturing.\n\nIn other countries they may rely more on agriculture and mining and use their land in this way. What I would say is that it's probably a long road between relying mainly on land for your income and relying on knowledge services for your income. Many rich countries including England, France, and the USA progressed through the different stages by exploting human labour of other people (slavery, and colonisation for example), but now want to deny countries such as China their desire to attack human rights in the name of creating wealth.    \n\nIf I was a small country, I'd find my biggest asset, make the most of it and try to become self-sufficient. I would work first on infrastructure, primary health, primary education, stopping internal conflict, and increasing awareness of diseases if I was susceptible to that. I would look at building long term diplomatic relations with neighbouring states, and make decisions about who I want to ally with strategically.\n\nThis could have been a one sentence answer but I felt like writing. Good luck!
227677
Maybe Socialism is better, but capitalism is more human unfortunately.\n\nsocialism is a great idea, but it has to be everywhere for it to work because if there is a capitalist nation next door then it begins dragging the socialist down.\n\nsorry I had to be practical
529486
Technology.  Just look at Russia to see why socialism is a horrific idea.  A generation living under the government of the USSR has created an entire country of people with entitlement minds.  Since coming out from that government, they have no work ethic, and that is why you see all the dilapidated buildings that there are in Russia.
281409
Show me the $$$MONEY$$$--it's the Amerrcan way of life.  Capitalism, privatizashun, an free enterprize.  If you don't like it, move to some commie country.
306221
USA: capitalist, and produces more agricultural products than the next two countries combined\n\nChina: socialist, and mines significantly more material from the earth than any other country...\n\nI'm not sure what it all means anyways...
82514
Socialism is a form of government that controls its society through over taxation. Nobody really rich, nobody really poor. Due to the fact that most Socialist regimes have more funds going out, then coming in, they are destined to go bankrupt. Socialism has had success in countries that have people sharing the same ideologies. (usually places that don't like immigration like Finland, Norway ect.). Communism differs in that it does not allow a balance of privatization vs. government at all and is controlled by more authoritarian measures. Everything is for the "state", and market economies are not allowed to exist. Lack of ownership by individuals is another difference between Communism and Socialism. Hillary Clinton agenda is a good example of a socialist. Chavez in Venezuela is a good example of how Communism takes root.....Best to think of governments in this way. Draw a line.....at the furthest left is communism....then socialism...then the democratic party in the US....then moderate.....then repblican party US.........then fascism.......and all the way Right no government.
204175
Capitalism is an other word for greed. Communism is about sharing, neither work very well in its entirety. However some socialism in a mix with capitalism would work if you could get the capitalist to see that it would restore order to a chaotic society.
464073
Generally, the European countries - France, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark to name the top 5.  Reason is that they are broad minded and peaceful yet very much involved in world events.  They have a good standard of living and a good balance of social programs with free economy.  I am American and USA could take a lesson.
267681
The Socialist system, like what the UK has, is one of the best.  It mixes with democracy providing freedoms, yet, the government cares for you.  \nI like Socialism as i think that the Government is more responsive to you.
1344
"America" is not a country, it's a continent formed by three sub-continents (north, central and south america).\n\nNow about the question, since it's about the USA... Marx's wrote his works more than 100 years ago, with Germany in mind (the fact that Russia was the place where the revolution took place and was successful is still a high topic among historians) --by then, the USA was an underdeveloped country, without a big proletarian base or an industrial/urban developed production system, which was the requested condition for the revolution (again, Russia was a contradiction to this request). Therefore, you cannot apply Marx's theory 'directly' to a country today. The capitalist system has developed internal restraints and "decompressing" mechanisms that ensure that, even when the inequality and the poverty or the income distribution are ignominious, the system is not under danger of disruption.\n\nCapitalism, as Marx said, might have the seed of self destruction, but it also has selfpreservation mechanisms (corporations, NGOs, formal democracy --even in non-democratic countries--). Also, it offers what some people might call a 'messianic' or 'religious' promise: the best of the worlds is here, on earth and while you are alive, and you need money and success to attain it (I am talking about the protestant capitalism, not the catholic one, which came later): therefore, the success of capitalism is guaranteed by the fact that the lower classes want to become middle class, and middle class wants to become high class. This ensures all of them, especially the middle class, is ultra-conservative, fighting to keep the status-quo, so they can (someday) be high-class and enjoy what the system promises (of course, the status-quo needs to be based on inequality, so you have classes and people fight to escalate in the social chain).\n\nwhat do I know?...