... and the utter disaster that those were were actually still superior to what happened in China, Vietnam and other South Asian nations.
This is the best, not the worst, that socialism has brought:
> “The third tier socialized healthcare is for everyone else. Yes, it was free. But it also was a disaster of epic proportions. Truly horror movie like. You may think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. Countless people died because of lack of medicine, filthy operating rooms,…”
> “…lack of heat in the winter, broken down ambulances, overcrowded emergency rooms and last but not least doctors who were so poorly paid that they had to accept bribes in order to give proper attention to patients. This situation remained a disaster for another decade after…”
The worst, of course, was outright mass murder. And that's ignoring that both Cuba and the Soviet Union, which, again, are the better examples, did cause famines to eliminate populations. But again, a famine is far preferable to the "cultural revolution".
The issue is sustainability. Besides pensions at the local level, nothing to worry about for us in the US.
Those in France, Germany, Sweden must deal with major issue, including homegrown terrorists, low economic activity, decline in population, lack of control of their monetary policy. They will crash, as all socialistic country do, when their ressources are exhausted or when their population stops believing the dream their government sells them.
How many of the top internet companies are located there? Which of the top blockchain comparies are located there? Unless you think it will be different for the next technology, they will keep missing the boat and falling more and more behind.
Average income in Mississipi, the poorest US state, is higher than in these countries- look at the price of gas and electronics here vs there - and so on. Here buying a tiny car, without AC or automatic transmission would be weird. People did that a long time ago, but we can afford better now. There, it is still the norm.
It is just a question of when they fail
That’s just circular reasoning! All socialist countries fail because all of them will fail if they haven’t already. What?
What’s the deal with your Mississippi statement? A quick search shows Mississippi with a median income of about $20,000, and France (for example) at over $30,000.
I would be happy if I am wrong on this one example: I do not wish anyone to be poor. However, wikipedia says median income for MS is 40k now, cf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incom...
While for France, it is 20k according to http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_...
My numbers may be wrong, as other sources say it would just be above the 12 poorest, see https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...
If France median income is not lower than the poorest US state, but on par with the bottom 1/5 of the states, that still speaks volume. It's burdened by a system that can't work.
You appear to be comparing Mississippi’s median household income with France’s median individual income. The former is of course much higher.
However I'm not sure you should celebrate that.
One aspect to taxes in Sweden that is not well known is that while taxes are high on labor, they are relatively low for corporations (22 percent) and capital. Keeping taxes low keeps corporations and capital from going to other countries. The 1994 changes in government deregulated everything from taxi, air service, railroads, electricity, telecom and school choice.
The open-competition school choice model in Sweden would trigger U.S. teacher unions into a froth. Parents and pupils decide what school they want to attend and they are all paid for by taxes. Corporations, towns, charities, religions, most anyone and anything can start a school, but it’s up to parents and pupils if they want to attend. The more people that choose a particular school determines if that school will get more government funding.
The fiscal side of Sweden has become increasingly pro free market, ranking 15th globally while the US ranks 18th. These capitalist features have helped sustain Sweden’s standard of living, but dark clouds are on the horizon. The nation has an ageing workforce coupled with a slowing birthrate (1.67 per female, well below the 2.1 needed for a population to maintain its population). Decades without significant construction in cities has resulted in skyrocketing housing prices, while high wages leave many unskilled workers, both Swedish and foreign-born, on the fringes of the labor market.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry...
I don't think this is what you have in mind. If it is, it's not socialism. Looks like more market economy than in the US.
I've lived in France, so euhm ... shows what you know I guess.
(France has private, mostly employer provided healthcare (though you can pay for yourself if you want), and emergency and basic care available for free. Whilst yes the free part covers more than it does in the US, it's definitely not socialist medicine. Also, more and more doctors refuse to treat patients for the basic care (which they're allowed to do))
every time
The result is not convincing. It’s like a burn victim arguing against fire. Yes, fire can be bad, and I’m sorry you got burned, but I’m not going to give up cooking or heating because you’ve been traumatized.