|>>|| No. 419060
> I see a gradual progression towards them working together over the top of each other (arguably like we have now)
The thing is that neither pure unbridled capitalism nor all out socialism have proved to be effective in using resources efficiently and at the same time providing a worthy standard of living for the majority of the people. Unchecked capitalism tends to have an effect of ever more money and power accumulating in ever fewer hands. There is a famous parable in economics that states that if you distributed all the world's money evenly among all humans on the planet at noon one day and let things run their course without any kind of regulation at all, then by the early afternoon, you would have a mere handful of people again controlling almost all of that money.
History has shown that pure, unbridled, unlimited capitalism has a tendency to destroy itself the same way that socialism does. Because unchecked capitalism not only means many people become or remain poor while few prosper massively, but it also does such things as hinder competition, because unchecked capitalism tends to create monopolies over time. Competition and as a result seemingly neverending technological innovation are one of the key arguments for a capitalist system. Innovation means you aren't (likely) surfing the Internet with Windows 95 on a CRT monitor. Innovation means you have a fridge at home and a car with sat nav in the driveway, and running water in the bathroom and a toilet that flushes. And innovation can also mean an efficient use of natural resources, if steered in the right direction.
Socialism, on the other hand, at least the kind we saw practised in Eastern Europe, China, Southeast Asia and Latin America mainly in the 20th century, has had the problem that the idea of controlling the use of resources on a national level works quite poorly. Most classic socialist economies made or make multi-year plans in some way, shape, or form, in which the output of all kinds of goods is fixed. Industries and services are nationalised, and the whole system basically just works by people receiving orders from above and handing them further down in the chain of command. From politicians and indeed even economists who thought they could efficiently control the use of resources for entire industries and the whole country. The problem was, not only did this not work, and resources were squandered left, right and centre, but it also led to a standstill of innovation and standard of living. And in the later stages of economic failure, the bars for five-year plans were set so low that even an industrial combine that more or less spent those five years just pissing about received honours for fulfilling the five-year plan. There were just no incentives for personal responsibility, or indeed for the efficient use of resources. And when entire countries function that way, you end up with a 1970s Lada in your driveway that you had to wait for for ten years, you had only twenty percent of the population with a landline phone, and having a colour TV at all put you above your neighbours on your muddy unpaved village street.
What controlled (!) capitalism has taught us is that if you put the decisions over what resources to use in what way into the hands of individual companies which privately own thouse resources, then capital and other economic production factors tend to flow where they attain the best possible return of investment. Return on investment, in some ways, is also merely a monetary measure of expressing how efficiently you have used your resources.
You could say that a bit of socialism within a capitalist system takes the edge off it. My conviction as an economist is that only a sound combination of the two enables a large enough share of the world's population to live in relative prosperity and economic security.
And I would actually concur that we have too much capitalism in our world and too little socialism. Or rather, too few socialist elements in our capitalism. But as I said above, pure socialism has turned out to be just as little the right answer to the world's problems as unbridled capitalism.