Why would they do that when they're doing fine in Spain?

Because they won't be fine for much longer under their socialist government. Look at Spanish economy: high public debt, high unemployment, low productivity growth. All this results in low competitiveness, and will inevitably lead to the necessity to get off the train of taxing everyone into prosperity.

> Because they won't be fine for much longer under their socialist government

How long would a state required to be socialist before you consider it to not be in a perpetual state of "this will fail tomorrow"?

Since you consider Spain socialist, that means you probably consider Sweden socialist as well then, since it's more "socialist" on basically every metric I can think of? If so, Sweden been socialist close to 100 years (about 3 times longer than Spain), is Sweden also about to go down the drain then because of the welfare policies?

> Look at Spanish economy: high public debt, high unemployment, low productivity growth

Good example. For the last 10 years, debt is slightly worse, unemployment is dramatically better and the productivity remains unchanged. Yet, we have public health care. So seems socialism might not actually be so bad after all.

You know Europe exist right?

Yes, and the more socialistic it gets, the worse it becomes. Also, the naivety and arrogance of ppl here who have never experienced real socialism is something.

Yes, northern Europe well known to be hell on earth.

Pretty much. Sweden was almost destroyed by socialists in the 1970-80s, which culminated in 1990..1994 crisis, and they only got back on track when they rolled back the most insane economic initiatives of previous governments. They sharply reduced public spending and significantly deregulated the economy, which allowed them to recover. But now, public spending creeps back up again, and the outcome is unlikely to be different this time.

Also, if you wonder why so few big unicorn companies appear in Europe, look no further than their tax policies.

Mm yes, billionaires per capita is the only metric that matters.

> Move to Cuba then

What seems to indicate I didn't like where I currently live? Not sure why I'd want to live in something similar to the USSR, that sounds all-around bad. Did I misunderstand something or are you misunderstanding what I've been writing?

I think you are misunderstanding socialism and what it brings to its victims. Cuba is a very good demo of what socialism eventually results in.

That could be.

It could also be that you have a very single-minded understanding of socialism, since you seem to think that Cuba and USSR are the two only countries who've had socialist policies ever.

It seems more than a little disingenuous to inflict trillions of dollars in damage through sanctions on a small island nation, then blame their economic policy (namely, not bending the knee to the US) for their situation.

> The United Nations estimated in 2023 the total economic damage to the Cuban economy to be in the "trillions of dollars" since inception [1958].

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

Putting that into perspective, a trillion dollars would be about $100,000 for every man woman and child in Cuba today.

I had the misfortune of being born in very socialistic USSR, so please, don't preach to about the joys of socialism to me or others who had actually experienced them.

And yes, Cuban economy would have imploded even without sanctions, just like Venezuela's did.

Your personal experience in one (heavily sanctioned and attacked) country doesn't change the facts, and it's weird you think it does.

> yes, Cuban economy would have imploded even without sanctions, just like Venezuela's did.

That would carry more weight - or any weight at all - if you addressed the argument. $100,000 per person is significant.

And using Venezuela to make your point is very silly, considering they were hit with massive sanctions as well.