Which one is better?

From my point of view, even though capitalism is more efficient than socialism in adressing issues of efficiency and maximization of benefits, it leaves a lot to be desired on the social front, because it's willing to leave to the forces of market public services that in no way should be left to that mechanism (ex. education, health services, and lately in the US, the military services, with the so called contractor companies like Blackwater).

Likewise, even though socialism have dealt with social issues a lot more efficiently than capitalism (at least on the Scandinavian countries and some of the western european ones) it leaves a lot to be desired on the freedom of speech and human rights front, because it incentivates social strife by pitting social classes against one another. I think that my ideal system would be one that manages to balance the strong points of both systems while leaving aside the more unsavory parts of both.

Well, I’m sorry to say, that; I’m capitalist pig, both by trade, and education(lol) The big problems with economic policy emerge with the tradeoff between equity and efficiency; on those issues, I can only agree to disagree(that’s all one can do). I think both extremes are ineffective and impracticable in today world.

I agree with you. Capitalism and socialism both don't work as well as what each system promises...

that is wishy washy ....you must be more forthright or we will all be dragged away to the gulag ..

I think a mixed economy is ideal. I mean if you look at the statistics the majority of the top developed countries are social democracies and mixed economies. Spain, Canada, Iceland, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Germany, Sweden just to name a few...are all social democracies and they are doing pretty well. They are all high income countries and inequality is low.

A man dies and it is judgement day. "I am afraid you have not made it to heaven. But you can, as a special favour, have a choice of hells".

"What do you mean, a choice of hells?" "You can go to the capitalist hell or the communist hell".

"Ok, fair enough, but what's the difference between them?" "Well, the capitalist hell has fire and brimstone and torture." "And the communist hell?" "That has brimstone and torture and fire".

"I don't understand. They sound exactly the same. Which should I pick?"

"If I were you I'd choose the communist hell."

"Why should I do that?"

"Well, you know what these socialist places are like. Sometimes there's no fire, sometimes there's no brimstone, sometimes there's no torture............................. this joke says it best

In essense, under Capitalism, man is remunerated(rewarded) according to his effort and contribution to the society, whereas under Socialism, he is remunerated (rewarded) according to his needs without regard to his contributions to that society.
It follows, therefore, that if a person is not ambitious enough to contribute to the society he is still "taken care of" by the majority without regard to the lack of contribution he makes to the society.
It is this inigma that most of us who are Capitalists object to. We resent having to pay for someone else's lack of ambition or lack of it in pursuing a better way of life for themselves and posterity. We resent providing them with the opportunity to advance themselves only to turn around and demand that we provide them with the "safety nets" of health care, non-contributory retirement, day care for their children, etc., even while we provide them with wages appropriate to their work. And, YES, I realize that not all Capitalists provide a livable wage to their employees, but that is usually in thearea of "unskilled labor". Many "highschool dropouts" think they are due the same wages as a college graduate.
TB

Revolutionary theory according to which the more money one makes the less there is left for others (see Zero-Sum). The most important implication of Marxism is that it gives us a moral right to seize other people's property. Although people have always intuitively longed to liberate public property from private pockets , Karl Marx has provided a moral and philosophical foundation for such urges. Another important scientific discovery that Marx made was that our right to other people's property can be institutionalized through revolution, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the rule of political commissars unrestrained by bourgeois morals.

Marxism Intent or act of liberating public property from morally wrong private possession. Considered illegal under capitalist law and stigmatized by such non-words as shoplifting, looting, thievery, piracy, larceny, robbery, and vandalism. Spontaneous Marxism does not require a proficient knowledge of the works of Karl Marx as the proletarian instinct is already taking him or her in the right direction. Was legal in the USSR (a.k.a. collectivization). Also known as the "five-finger discount" in the inchoate radical sectors of the populace.