Why does the American mixed market system achieve economic success at the expense of social and moral decline?

[John G]

Your statement is not true, or if it IS true, includes no data to support it. Therefore, it is sort of like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife yet. Show me (show everyone) the data to support the claim, then we can get to work on trying to answer it.

From my cursory examination of the US budget, it appears to me that the investment in social welfare, public health and education has increased over the years, is the second largest item in the budget, and I have personally witnessed the prompt application of such social benefits and entitlements.

I can't prove it, but it occurs to me that a successful economy would be more able to support more social initiatives than an unsuccessful one -especially those that come from the private sector. The fact that benefits may be more widely available elsewhere doesn't speak to the quality of such benefits but in general I note that in countries that are more socialized, the tax rates are much higher than they are here, so you could ask, "Why does the universal application of social and moral support systems come at the expense of higher taxes and less individual economic freedom?"

The answer to your question and mine, with or without the supporting data, is probably that someone has to pay for it all, one way or another.

It is a shame that such a poignant question is flawed by a lack of data to support the underlying premise.