4 ms·

So, the proof that the Soviet lessons of socialism apply to Western Europe is that all socialist countries eventually suffer from it. The proof of that is that

So, the proof that the Soviet lessons of socialism apply to Western Europe is that all socialist countries eventually suffer from it. The proof of that is that all of them have. If they haven’t, they will. 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.

1996 8y ago
It is based on physical reality: over promising limited resources can't work. Socialism is based on this premise. Unfortunately, it can't work in the long term. 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_income 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_di04&lang=en 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-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states 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.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I don’t see why socialism must overpromise. You appear to be comparing Mississippi’s median household income with France’s median individual income. The former is of course much higher.
  - 1996 8y ago
    My mistake, and I am happy I made it. France is only in the 20% poorest US states, instead of being poorer than the poorest. However I'm not sure you should celebrate that.

1996 8y ago

It is based on physical reality: over promising limited resources can't work. Socialism is based on this premise. Unfortunately, it can't work in the long term. 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_income 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_di04&lang=en 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-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states 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.

mikeash 8y ago
I don’t see why socialism must overpromise. You appear to be comparing Mississippi’s median household income with France’s median individual income. The former is of course much higher.
- 1996 8y ago
  My mistake, and I am happy I made it. France is only in the 20% poorest US states, instead of being poorer than the poorest. However I'm not sure you should celebrate that.