>I mean, even if we assume a socialist economy is terribly inefficient, like operating at 50% of the efficiency a capitalist one, it still should be enough for

>I mean, even if we assume a socialist economy is terribly inefficient, like operating at 50% of the efficiency a capitalist one, it still should be enough for sustaining a resource-rich country. That's a hell of an assumption. One of the things you're failing to consider is that when resources are allocated by fiat instead of by markets, corruption becomes much more pervasive and suffocating. Also, all of the people who have the skills and experience to get things done leave for somewhere they can be rewarded for their efforts instead of demonized. >I mean, this is not some mid-African country with >50% of the population illiterate, bunch of horrible tropical diseases, plus children running around with guns and AIDS... Except it actually isn't too far from that. People don't seem to recognize just how fragile civilization is. Look at Cuba. It was once the richest country in Latin America. Today it is one of the poorest thanks to communism.