so taking specific success stories doesn't mean a whole lot.
its not just specific tho is it
If I robbed 100 people and bought a mansion with the money, I don't think anyone would call it a glorious triumph of my mansion building ability or the "fruits" of my labour, and it would also make those 100 people worse off. Exactly the same applies to government, but on a larger scale and with far more imprecise aims.
well building a mansion with tax money is a bit straw man tbh how about we take down a notch to gov built houses would you say that the capitalisation of that by thatcher has led to a better housing situation than the Chinese ? most new builds theses days are smaller and have inferior build quality compered to the old council houses
Government isn't filled with geniuses who somehow are able to plan and make better infrastructure than private companies. Even when government manages to build something high quality, it does so (at best) wastefully because it doesn't base it's calculations on market forces, but on what a bunch of people in a room decide is "good for the country" or "good for society". The Soviet Union produced vast amounts of steel -- which when viewed in isolation could be seen as an amazing accomplishment of rapid industrialisation -- but an enormous proportion of it was left to corrode by the sides of railway lines never to be used because they just produced it based on what they thought the country needed. China has been doing a similar thing; they've got entire cities which are empty and five lane motorways without a car in sight.
and in a free market environment we can have an over abundance of tulips at silly prices
A rich, mostly free economy can support nationalised industries (the cost of which will be felt elsewhere in the economy, and will also manifest itself in the form of wasted potential -- i.e. what could've been if the government hadn't nationalised). But, the more you nationalise and the less free the economy gets, the more of a strain nationalised industries become, and the more the free parts of the economy suffer. So it only really makes sense to speak in terms of an entire economy, and the evidence is plentiful that freer markets perform better. There is nothing to suggest that further liberalisation or privatisation of the economy would lead to worse outcomes.
free markets always lead to a depression as the market participants are always seeking a better deal this can lead to differed spending and investment
a mix of both is perfect but its the free shit army on both sides of the coin that are the problem