You do not live in a market (capitalist) economy
 

There is no such thing as a purely market economy. It doesn't exist, and it never has. It probably never will.

The U.S. is as purely capitalistic as China is purely communist. Have a closer look-see, and you will soon realize that both economies are technically mixed economies.

If you live in North America, Europe, or, yes, even China, you are living in a mixed economy.

Below are common elements of such:
Of course, not all mixed economies are the same. The U.S. is closer to a market economy, and China is closer to a command economy, but each have mixed in elements to stabilize certain features. In the case of the U.S., socialist programs and strategies were implemented as a means to provide for the basic welfare of its citizens and to influence the business cycle. In the case of China, capitalist strategies have blown open their global competitiveness and has advanced their technological development. However, the U.S. tends to value autonomy over offering benefits, and China has problems with individual freedoms. This is what sets them apart.

What aspects of mixed-market economies do you value? If there is much that you don't like, I'd like to know what you do like. If there is much you hold valuable, then tell me what you don't.

In my view, I tend to like most aspects of mixed economies as listed above. I credit these elements for Canada's relatively good mixture of stability, competitiveness, and fairness, even in light of the "Great Recession." The only thing I would take issue with is disproportionate spending or government regulation where it doesn't make sense or isn't in the best interests of the parties involved. The decisions must uphold a standard of decency, rather than unreasonable restrictiveness.

Canada hasn't always done well in this respect, but generally we've done better than many. For example, we need to fix problems with our nationalized health care, we have issues of brain drain, and businesses tend to think our taxes are too high. On the positive side, we do fairly well to support small business in a globalized economy, our banks are adequately regulated, and our laws are generally viewed as fair. I think we have a decent balance of freedom, law, social support, and regulation, which are the hallmarks of a successful mixed economy.

What do you think?

I think that the realities of the US economy are convenient for free market proponents.

They get to be in the position of imploring everyone to "let the market handle it," and then when the market fails, as it sometimes does, they always have the out of "well, it's not the market's fault, it's government interference that's to blame."

In other words, the fundamentals of their perspective have the "advantage" of being untestable.

I'd argue that the US has devolved to the worst system possible:

Wealthy individuals and institutions have been taking massive, foolish risks, attempting to make obscene riches.
The taxpayer certainly isn't included in these plans and isn't going to share in the gains if any occur.
When they fail, the taxpayer gets left holding the bag.
So we have capitalism when it comes to making huge riches, but socialism when the "big guns" falter and need to be propped up.

Meh, i didn't like that.

People will not like me for saying this, but the U.S. hurt itself by being greedy. "Made in the U.S.A." used to mean something. So what is "Made in the U.S.A." today? Practically everthing that consumers buy is produced outside of the U.S.A.. Why? Cost. And greed. Companies outsource. People buy outsourced products. The majority don't have a choice. In the 1950's, a family could own a home and live on the fathers income (not to say anything against equal opportunity) while the mother stayed home. That is not possible today. The dynamics of our economy no longer let that happen.

They didn't really have a choice. If companies didn't shift manufacturing of certain things overseas to save on labour cost, the imported products would outsell the American products. You'd have TVs selling for half the price as "Made in U.S.A." TVs. The consumer would choose, more often than not, the TV at half the price. Quality is a consideration, but not all products made in Asia are garbage. The consumer has the ultimate choice. In many ways, they chose the cheaper products, which is why we're here. Thank Wal-mart for rolling back the prices as well.

The average home size is now twice what it was in the 1950s. Plus back then they only had ...maybe...one television, one car, and maybe one or two radios. A phone, maybe two. No computers, no other electronics. They repaired their clothes instead of buying new ones every season. They cooked at home from scratch. Maybe it's time to live like that once again.

It is possible. People still do it.

the idea that the united states has been anything like a "free market" fantasy at any point since world war 2 is laughable.

"free marketeers" have used this ideology to advance the interests of the patronage network they serve and disadvantage political opponents who serve different patronage networks.
it worked for a while as a marketing tool and now it really doesn't. at some point, a different language will probably get fabricated by these same political operatives who will then try to advance the interest of the patronage networks for which they stand once again.

The closest thing the U.S. ever had to a free market was the laissez-faire circus of the 19th century. You know, the robber barons of oil, steel, railroad, and finance. The era of unfair business practices, abuse of labour, and ridiculous amassing of wealth held in very few hands. But, even then, it wasn't a purely free market. High tariffs were implemented to protect these businessmen...I mean, companies.

So there was a free market in those areas for precisely how many years? 1? 2? 5? 10?

Those oligarchs certainly rose up very quickly.

I could not have said it better myself!

I don't know the history in detail, but as more people became eligible to vote, more pressure was placed on the government to intervene in the market. Some early issues (and ones that tie back to the 19th century) were the demand for laws on child labour and workplace safety. Gradually over time, labour rights and, eventually, labour laws placed further restrictions on what we would otherwise call a completely free market.

I'd say that as soon as one of the robber barons rose to the point of anti-competitive advantage, then the 'free' market is dead at that point.

The problem of anti-competition was certainly a big part of it. While these unregulated giants of industry benefited from the protection of tariffs, they continued to dominate their realm of business to the extent that new entrants were virtually an impossibility. I can only assume that pressure was exerted on government to do something, as I'm sure that there were many who were repeatedly frustrated by their inability to enter the market.

When that much wealth is concentrated in so few hands—to an extent that makes our current situation of wealth distribution look tolerable—the question of fairness becomes a prominent topic of what is best for society as a whole. A lack of competition hurts both consumers and workers.

Of course we've never really had a super-pure "free market." That has never and cannot ever exist. It's a theoretical construct.

Besides, functioning markets will always need government intervention for certain services, like monopoly-busting, providing rule of law, and providing for pure public (and sometimes quasi-public) goods. And that's just the minimum government intervention required.

I have some difficulty with the definitions used in the OP. There seems to be some confusion between the system of government and the economic system. Although the two are inextricably inter-related, the economic system is not theoretically dependent on the form of government. Communism need not be a dictatorship or oligarchy, but almost universally is. Socialism and capitalism are both viable market regimes under almost any form of government.

The OP implicitly assumes a sharp delineation of government areas of expenditure and market oversight in a free market that I think is really artificial and mostly a matter of any particular author's opinion. In the strictly classical sense of a free market, even the laissez-faire attitude of the 19th century didn't make it. Parts of the market may have been free, but regulation was already rearing it's not-so-ugly head.

There's never been a truly free market since the days of government, and given the need to maintain some semblance of order for the good of society, there never will be. As for capitalism, I think it completely failed as a philosophy when Madison Ave reached the point that it could convince people that a Cadillac was better than exactly the same functional & feature-laden vehicle with the name Pontiac on it, simply because it was a Cadillac. That simply shouldn't happen under capitalism, in theory.

Communism is, in the least, a form of economic dictatorship/oligarchy. Its structure is based on a centralized control over all or most factors of production and the related decisions concerning them. With communism, the power over capital remains in the hands of governing bodies. With capitalism, it remains in the hands of individuals...well, at least those fortunate enough to obtain it.

At least with socialism, individuals are usually left to own and operate a certain proportion of the production.

I can't see how a governing body that controls the factors of production can be anything other than authoritarian.

I don't think you can easily democratize communism. I think the closest we get is social democracy or democratic socialism. "Pure (stateless) communism" is a bit of a pipe dream.