Right, but if you look at the countries with the most capitalism, they produce the most advancements. (Like the US)

Capitalism is far far superior to socialism. It does reward people for hard work with money etc, allows the free market to thrive in a way socialism does not allow...

But socialism has become a dirty word, which I don't agree with. A lot of die-hard capitalists think that any kind of socialism is unacceptable, but in many nations they can benefit from socialized education, healthcare, library services and so on.

So what if it increases taxes? So what if it gives the poor don't earn their education? If the government can manage it, it should be done IMO.

Virgin Galactic says otherwise.

Hyperion has been licensed to make next-generation nuclear powerplants. One small unit can power 20,000 homes. They're a private firm based out of New Mexico.

I think you forget that venture capitalists exist in the economy as a means to fund fringe technologies that require massive investments. In Hyperion's case, Altria provided $176m in funds to start up their mini-nuke plant production.

Private sources can and will fund technology growth on fringe markets. Look at the X-Prize and White Knight 1. If there are resources in space that can be used on earth, who do you think is going to fund it? The government? No. Resource acquisition is usually privately based (look at farming, mining, and many energy production types).

Private industries can lag behind the government on technologies in some cases, but that doesn't mean that any technology wouldn't of been discovered unless it was for the government. I do agree the government needs to invest more in technology, but it should do such as it decreases costs/increases efficency in other sectors.

Yeah, but Clement Attle became primeminister after the largest scale war the country had ever been in. That's the main reason it was in debt, because the resources ran dry.

Well i do know that, but i just used is as a example. Every socialist/left wing government commited to bringing "equality" ends up taking more and more from the people in the country. Because high spending can never stop and nationalised industries become more and more expensive. Socialism is just not efficent enough, plus well i do not really believe in equality among people, such thing is impossible.

And how far is Virgin Galatic behind the United States and Soviet Government?  50 years?  Meaning at best we would just be getting satellites right now.  Thats not to mention what technology they've borrowed from NASA.

Do you have any idea how much the Manhattan Project, Hadron Collider, and other uncertain, experimental projects cost?  Its a lot more than any private business is willing to risk money on, thats for sure.

Government spending and capitalism is not mutually exclusive. If the government needs a product, and puts out a request, gets bids, and selects the best contractor to do whatever task then need done, they have engaged in capitalism. If they just build a nuclear research facility, and say “make me something cool”, then they have engaged in socialism.

How the government spends the money it collects is very important.

Government spending is socialism, the government is essentially providing a good that could (or could not) be provided by the free market.  If the government collects taxes, identifies a public good that the market can not provide (space flight, nuclear technollogy) and then hires a contractor from the private sector, then it is a mix of both systems.

@ Mafoo

surely the government spending money on the military to protect the nation is the same as spending the money on healthcare? only healthcare defends you against illness instead of hostile armies

Oh god, government spending isn't socialism if they contract, but it is if they don't?