Sure, but that's not what economic freedom is defined as here.

Any good can be sold.

I'm using Heritage's index.

Regardless of private ownership.

Capitalist always have their definition because if a definition was to be made universal from all political perspectives they wouldnt have arguments to defend it.

I mean they would but they would be pretty bad lol.

Well this is why I don't argue any defintions of Capitalism and Socialism, it's pointless.

So you think the status quo is in decline?

Its forced to.

The problem is that even tho it is in decline it will only adapt and not transform.

So what makes you think it's in decline?

Like any metrics?

Of capitalism or general global economy?

I thought the global economy is "capitalist"

I mean capitalism failed, because it didnt deliver what it promised.

Global economy is neo liberal global market economy.

But yes its that way because of capitalism.

Capitalism as its originally defined has transformed.

Kind of socialism transforming to communism in a weird sense.

What did it promise?

But this time its capitalism to global market economy.

It promised economic and personal freedoms yet made them reliant on property owners and wage labour.

Take it this way.

I don't support that.

I support high economic freedom and personal freedom.

I,e most first world countries are "very free" on the index of economic freedom.

So I'm obviously for free markets.

Under socialism you work in a factory, you are paid depending on your labor, your productivity is valued, the state allows you and sometimes organizes vacations, holidays etc, allowing your personal freedoms.
Under capitalism you work in a factory, you are paid depending on your rank/position, position is predetermined by your relationship with individual that owns the factory and documents (education etc, even tho it may not be related to the specific task you are given), your free time is regulated by the property owner, you use your own labor money, which is not your own because it goes to the owner, then owner distributes a share he wants to keep you in line and allow you to use that money for your personal freedoms, even tho your needs are not met and to meet them you use that money, making it basically only a slave wage allowing you to function more, and the only reason you function is to profit.

GG @ᴏᴠᴇʀꜱᴇᴇʀ ꜱᴛʀᴀꜱꜱᴇʀ, you just advanced to level 4!

The only difference between left capitalism is that the state takes more of your money from tax but secures your basic needs, but in right they take less of your tax but dont secure basic needs.

But at the end of the day you find yourself in same position regardless.

So can the status quo be called "capitalism"

If not, can you give me an example of the status quo like you did for the above two?

Difference is that capitalism is more or less reliant on medium to small business owners, but owners themselves are workers, and due to the balanced market and economic power of those owners, the resources are mainly used to benefit a community like a local state or a country, and exports are managed by the state.

In global market economy the monopoliesregulate exports and the market, allowing for economic imperialism, making the small business owners either evolve by exploiting more labor, using economic imperialism, trying to sway the market to their side or they fail and become one of the working class.

Ok let's say the USA as an example

Only benefiting more to eliminating the middle class and making am ore huge gap between the capitalist and the workers.

How would you describe that as you did with "Capitalism and socialism" above.

USA is global market economy id say but its domestic politics are free market regulated capitalism.

Id call it state capitalist but state capitalism uses regulation as a collective effort and is generally a phase to socialism.

USA is similar to most third world countries in terms of economic freedom; you must thing these types of economies are in decline aswell?