[rjtavares]

Both can coexist, but you can do it in a more capitalism or more socialist way.

Take e.g. healthcare. You can have all private healthcare (capitalist), a public and private sector coexisting (mixed), or exclusively public provider (socialist).

And that's just a sector. You can have socialist healthcare but capitalist manufacturing. Every economy is mixed, but it can balance to one side or the other.

(btw, all modern economies tend to be capitalist, but social democracies in Europe are definitely less capitalist than the US)

[Uberphallus]

A big chunk of European systems are neither of those three, there are three axes, one is regulation, another the practice, and the final one is funding.

France for example, has mostly public funding, relatively heavy regulation (prices are fixed), but practice remains mostly private (though mixed in hospitals).

Switzerland has mostly private funding, even heavier regulation (insurance is mandatory and you can't be refused for pre-existing conditions, for example), and most practice is private (some public hospitals).

The big elephant in the room in US healthcare is that funding is 50/50, yet you can only benefit from the public part by being old or extremely poor.

[hef19898]

That is an oversimplification. There is more defining Socialism than just healthcare. And having a solid social system in place is hardly a socialist thing.

[ryanbrunner]

I think their overall point is that it's possible to have sectors of the economy non-privately owned. Healthcare is a common one, but there's others - power generation, transit, education, etc.

If your definition of socialism is that absolutely all sectors of the economy are non-privately owned, then even places like Cuba don't qualify.

If your definition of capitalism is that absolutely all sectors of the economy ARE privately owned, the U.S. isn't a capitalist country.

[rjtavares]

Thank you, that was exactly my point.