Are socialist countries wealthier?

[Wuming6]

Look at these two tables. Table 1 shows that European Social-Democracies, those economies organized around high doses of the American-Nightmare called Socialism, are in the top 10 rank of per capita GDP. They are actually wealthier than completely free-market systems, including the US, even though they generally have less natural resources. Even more disturbing for the advocate of lassaiz-faire politics and minimal governemtn is the fact the taxation in these countries is very high and the provision of public service to the poor is extensive (free-health care, public transportation, generous unemployment income, generous retirement benefits, and so on). This fact is mirrored also by table 2 that display the GINI index, describing the economic inequalities. Not only the Social-Democracies produce more whealth, but a larger share of the population enjoy it, contrary to complete capitalist systems that face striking social exclusion problems.

It seems that those systems based on social solidarity and collaboration function better than those based on competitive individualism alone...

Thoughts?

TABLE 1: (RANK) COUNTRY=PER CAPITA GDP
(1) Luxembourg=104673*
(2) Norway=83922
(3) Qatar=72849*
(4) Iceland=63830
(5) Ireland=59924
(6) Switzerland=58084
(7) Denmark=57261
(8) Sweden=49655
(9) Finland=46602
(10) Netherlands=46261
(11) United States=45845
(12) United Kingdom=45575
(13) Austria=45181
(14) Canada=43485
(15) Australia=43312
(16) United Arab Emirates=42934*
(17) Belgium=42557
(18) France=41511
(19) Germany=40415
(20) Italy=35872
(21) Singapore=35163
(22) Japan=34312
(23) Kuwait=33634*
(24) Brunei=32167*
(25) Spain=32067
(26) New Zealand=30256
(27) Greece=28273
(28) Cyprus=27327
(29) Bahrain=25731*

* well, these States do no really are meaningful for this comparison, do they?

TABLE 2: (RANK) COUNTRY=GINI INDEX

(RANK) Country=GINI Index
(1) Denmark=24.7
(2) Japan=24.9
(3) Sweden=25[/b]
(4) Czech Republic=25.4
(5) Norway=25.8
(6) Slovakia=25.8
(7) Bosnia =26.2
(8) Finland=26.9
(9) Hungary=26.9
(10) Ukraine=28.1
(11) Germany=28.3
(12) Slovenia=28.4
(13) Croatia=29
(14) Austria=29.1
(15) Bulgaria=29.2
(16) Belarus=29.7
(17) Ethiopia=30
(18) Kyrgyzstan=30.3
(19) Pakistan=30.6
(20) Netherlands=30.9
(21) Romania=31
(22) Albania=31.1
(23) South Korea=31.6
(24) Canada=32.6
(25) Tajikistan=32.6
(26) France=32.7
(27) Mongolia=32.8
(28) Belgium=33
(29) Moldova=33.2
(30) Bangladesh=33.4
(31) Yemen=33.4
(32) Switzerland=33.7
(33) Armenia=33.8
(34) Kazakhstan=33.9
(35) Greece=34.3
(36) Indonesia=34.3
(37) Ireland=34.3
(38) Egypt=34.4
(39) Vietnam=34.4
...
...
(43) Spain=34.7
(44) Australia=35.2
(45) Algeria=35.3
(46) Estonia=35.8
(47) Italy=36
(48) Lithuania=36
(49) United Kingdom=36
(50) New Zealand=36.2
...
...
(67) Russia=39.9
(68) Mali=40.1
(69) Sri Lanka=40.2
(70) Georgia=40.4
(71) Ghana=40.8
(72) Turkmenistan=40.8
(73) United States=40.8
(74) Senegal=41.3
(75) Cambodia=41.7

[muhtesem insan]

well the problem is these countries are not socialist. Cuba is socialist.

[TheManhattanProject]

I would call them "social democracies"

Mixed economies.

[Rettet181]

To me these figures are not at all suprising. Indeed, I find them quite encouraging.

I have said many times that a planned economy would very likely perform better than a laissez faire capitalist one. It depends on how it's organized, what the motive is, and how it is implemented. An authoritarian socialism may not, but a social-democracy? I can jump on that ship.

Of course, the typical American is so afraid of Communism that anything that even remotely resembles it is labled evil. McCarthyism is still in full swing.

[Wuming6]

well the problem is these countries are not socialist. Cuba is socialist.

mmm, indeed i called them Social-Democracies in my post, and these economic systems are based on huge doses of siocialism. No Economy today is purely socialistic or purely capitalistic today. Even the US have several socialistic-type policies (transplant allocation, retirement plans, Medicare, etc). Of course is a matter of how-much. The title was provocatory, but I hope you got what I mean: generally right wing politician advocate tax cut and reduction of public spending in order to increase GDP growth. They mark as "socialist" (and thus inefficient) any policy aimed at relieving the situation of the poor and marginalized and they do consider those countries, pretty much infested with the curse of socialism. Apparently even high doses of socialism in an open economy do not harm and even boost growth, wealth and social peace.

So, your point is formally correct but irrelevant to the discussion.

[Ex~]

America is not even close to being a "completely free-market economy".

No "free market" economy exists in this world, nor could it in the way "conservatives" and "libertarians" imagine.


America has a planned economy, only it's planned by lobbyists and the corporate government rather than the people.


Planned economies work when implemented. Of COURSE they work. To assert otherwise is nonsensical. However, all the evidence shows "free market" unregulated capitalism DOESN'T work.

[Wuming6]

America is not even close to being a "completely free-market economy".

No "free market" economy exists in this world, nor could it in the way "conservatives" and "libertarians" imagine.


America has a planned economy, only it's planned by lobbyists and the corporate government rather than the people.


Planned economies work when implemented. Of COURSE they work. To assert otherwise is nonsensical. However, all the evidence shows "free market" unregulated capitalism DOESN'T work.

As I tried to explain I was not pursuing a classificatory effort and no "pure" models exist in the world and never will. But the point is that if you compare different economies you should be able to rank them in term of "Socialistness" (let's use some parameters, for example, taxation, tax revenue spending on social plans for the poor or to finance open access to education, and so on). In this hypothetical ranking of course you'd agree that Norway of Finland are much higher in rank than US. Counter-intuitively, precisely those States high in Socialistness are also those high in social equity and, more importantly, in per capita GDP. I say counter-intuitively, because the right-wing mantra, especially in the US, but even in Europe, says that the higher the tax the lower the GDP growth, the higher the government intervention in economy the worse it is.

[skearn1]

Look at these two tables. Table 1 shows that European Social-Democracies, those economies organized around high doses of the American-Nightmare called Socialism, are in the top 10 rank of per capita GDP. They are actually wealthier than completely free-market systems, including the US, even though they generally have less natural resources. Even more disturbing for the advocate of lassaiz-faire politics and minimal governemtn is the fact the taxation in these countries is very high and the provision of public service to the poor is extensive (free-health care, public transportation, generous unemployment income, generous retirement benefits, and so on). This fact is mirrored also by table 2 that display the GINI index, describing the economic inequalities. Not only the Social-Democracies produce more whealth, but a larger share of the population enjoy it, contrary to complete capitalist systems that face striking social exclusion problems.

It seems that those systems based on social solidarity and collaboration function better than those based on competitive individualism alone...

Thoughts?

TABLE 1: (RANK) COUNTRY=PER CAPITA GDP
(1) Luxembourg=104673*
(2) Norway=83922
(3) Qatar=72849*
(4) Iceland=63830
(5) Ireland=59924
(6) Switzerland=58084
(7) Denmark=57261
(8) Sweden=49655
(9) Finland=46602
(10) Netherlands=46261
(11) United States=45845
(12) United Kingdom=45575
(13) Austria=45181
(14) Canada=43485
(15) Australia=43312
(16) United Arab Emirates=42934*
(17) Belgium=42557
(18) France=41511
(19) Germany=40415
(20) Italy=35872
(21) Singapore=35163
(22) Japan=34312
(23) Kuwait=33634*
(24) Brunei=32167*
(25) Spain=32067
(26) New Zealand=30256
(27) Greece=28273
(28) Cyprus=27327
(29) Bahrain=25731*

* well, these States do no really are meaningful for this comparison, do they?

TABLE 2: (RANK) COUNTRY=GINI INDEX

(RANK) Country=GINI Index
(1) Denmark=24.7
(2) Japan=24.9
(3) Sweden=25[/b]
(4) Czech Republic=25.4
(5) Norway=25.8
(6) Slovakia=25.8
(7) Bosnia =26.2
(8) Finland=26.9
(9) Hungary=26.9
(10) Ukraine=28.1
(11) Germany=28.3
(12) Slovenia=28.4
(13) Croatia=29
(14) Austria=29.1
(15) Bulgaria=29.2
(16) Belarus=29.7
(17) Ethiopia=30
(18) Kyrgyzstan=30.3
(19) Pakistan=30.6
(20) Netherlands=30.9
(21) Romania=31
(22) Albania=31.1
(23) South Korea=31.6
(24) Canada=32.6
(25) Tajikistan=32.6
(26) France=32.7
(27) Mongolia=32.8
(28) Belgium=33
(29) Moldova=33.2
(30) Bangladesh=33.4
(31) Yemen=33.4
(32) Switzerland=33.7
(33) Armenia=33.8
(34) Kazakhstan=33.9
(35) Greece=34.3
(36) Indonesia=34.3
(37) Ireland=34.3
(38) Egypt=34.4
(39) Vietnam=34.4
...
...
(43) Spain=34.7
(44) Australia=35.2
(45) Algeria=35.3
(46) Estonia=35.8
(47) Italy=36
(48) Lithuania=36
(49) United Kingdom=36
(50) New Zealand=36.2
...
...
(67) Russia=39.9
(68) Mali=40.1
(69) Sri Lanka=40.2
(70) Georgia=40.4
(71) Ghana=40.8
(72) Turkmenistan=40.8
(73) United States=40.8
(74) Senegal=41.3
(75) Cambodia=41.7

You are false to assume that a country with abundant natural resources is automatically more predisposed to acquring wealth. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true, a situation called the "dutch curse."

Before considering the merits of either system, it must be said that a country's economic system is inexorably tied to its culture. Predictably,the higher individualism of the United States has created a more liberal economy, and the collectivist and homogeneous peoples of northern Europe have necessarily created a larger government role in their economies. The higher equality of a social democracy comes at the expense of risk-taking on the part of individuals; it is no accident that the US is so much more entrepreneurial. Conversely, more free market economies always create an underserved working class.

I also suspect that the small, homogeneous populations in northern Europe are less prone to allowing citizens to fall through the cracks, whereas the huge, highly diverse population of the US does not encourage solidarity.

[Wuming6]

You are false to assume that a country with abundant natural resources is automatically more predisposed to acquring wealth. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true, a situation called the "dutch curse."

Before considering the merits of either system, it must be said that a country's economic system is inexorably tied to its culture. Predictably,the higher individualism of the United States has created a more liberal economy, and the collectivist and homogeneous peoples of northern Europe have necessarily created a larger government role in their economies. The higher equality of a social democracy comes at the expense of risk-taking on the part of individuals; it is no accident that the US is so much more entrepreneurial. Conversely, more free market economies always create an underserved working class.

I also suspect that the small, homogeneous populations in northern Europe are less prone to allowing citizens to fall through the cracks, whereas the huge, highly diverse population of the US does not encourage solidarity.

I agree that cultural factors affect economic system choices. Fact is that our capitalist prophets are trying to say that US capitalism is the most efficient way of organizing a society. They adverse any policy that encourages solidarity and any financial provision to fund socialized services on the grounds that these provisions will cause devastating economic consequences. That's simply not true. In all Europe we have great health care, and its socialized, as they call it in the US, and we also pay less money. For each dollar spent on Health Care we buy more health and well-being. Yet, the capitalist prophet insist in their assumption that this is bad. So, It's cultural prejudice, not a rational evaluation of benefits and costs. That's exactly my point.

I do not agree when you say that US is much more entrepreneurial. it is a cliche'. Sweden have several successful multinational companies (Nokia, Ikea, and can continue), Finland was one of the most growing economies in the past decade (high tec economy is strong there), Denmark has one of the most dynamic labor market in the Western world, ecc.

[Matt H.]

Ah I see you mean 'socialist' in the modern, state welfare sense of the word. If you meant countries like North Korea and Vietnam I'd be a bit surprised, to say the least

[skearn1]

You are false to assume that a country with abundant natural resources is automatically more predisposed to acquring wealth. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true, a situation called the "dutch curse."

Before considering the merits of either system, it must be said that a country's economic system is inexorably tied to its culture. Predictably,the higher individualism of the United States has created a more liberal economy, and the collectivist and homogeneous peoples of northern Europe have necessarily created a larger government role in their economies. The higher equality of a social democracy comes at the expense of risk-taking on the part of individuals; it is no accident that the US is so much more entrepreneurial. Conversely, more free market economies always create an underserved working class.

I also suspect that the small, homogeneous populations in northern Europe are less prone to allowing citizens to fall through the cracks, whereas the huge, highly diverse population of the US does not encourage solidarity.

I agree that cultural factors affect economic system choices. Fact is that our capitalist prophets are trying to say that US capitalism is the most efficient way of organizing a society. They adverse any policy that encourages solidarity and any financial provision to fund socialized services on the grounds that these provisions will cause devastating economic consequences. That's simply not true. In all Europe we have great health care, and its socialized, as they call it in the US, and we also pay less money. For each dollar spent on Health Care we buy more health and well-being. Yet, the capitalist prophet insist in their assumption that this is bad. So, It's cultural prejudice, not a rational evaluation of benefits and costs. That's exactly my point.

I do not agree when you say that US is much more entrepreneurial. it is a cliche'. Sweden have several successful multinational companies (Nokia, Ikea, and can continue), Finland was one of the most growing economies in the past decade (high tec economy is strong there), Denmark has one of the most dynamic labor market in the Western world, ecc.

The most hard core proponents of both capitalism and socialism are usually the ones who don't know what they're talking about. Their opinions aren't worth addressing. I myself was enamored with the ruthless free market system until I actually started studying economics at my university. Real economists agree that the US health care system is an example of a market failure and needs government intervention to perform better, but that it should retain some aspects of the market. Obama has a good hybrid plan that would offer universal coverage and still allow ample choice for patients, which is good for American sensibilities.

I agree that there are many great Nordic companies, but the US tops numerous studies in ease of starting a business and has unparallelled resources through venture capitalists, business incubators, and excellent universities. The Nordic model is certainly an unparallelled success and has created great companies.

[LogicIsMyOnlyGuide]

Ah I see you mean 'socialist' in the modern, state welfare sense of the word. If you meant countries like North Korea and Vietnam I'd be a bit surprised, to say the least

Socialism is both communism and social democracy the main difference between them is the way they gain power revolution or democracy creating far differing systems as a result. I agree hes talking about social democracy.

[james1v]

The best performers seem to me to be Liberal Democracies, apart from the middle eastern ones who generously give each citizen a few quid at birth, then the ruling kings trouser the billions of oil money for themselves.

No extreme socialist/ communist slave making economy has ever done well.

Communism/Socialist extremist philosophy= We are all equal = We all get paid the same = Why bother working your
but off when the guy next to you is drinking coffee all day and pissing about but gets the same pay?
Totally demoralising! Production has to suffer! That's why even during the cold war America had to subsidise Russia with grain exports, even though their media bragged of record crops by the brilliant farmers of Russia/USSR.

[Wuming6]

I am clearly speaking of Social-democracies as mentioned in my starting post. Communism is of course a failure.

I am trying to make the point that solidaristic societies in a framework of regulated free-market might yield better outcomes than more individualistic societies. Economic theory seems to predict the contrary. Nevertheless, societies where egoism is highly regulated (through high taxation for example and re-distribution of wealth by free access to services) are very effective in producing wealth and well-being and opportunities for social mobility.

But, is economic theory designed to test this hypothesis properly? I am not an expert but, as far as I know, one of the main axioms of economic theory is that human beings function as a rational subject maximizing their overall utility. However, this assumption is not empirically verified even though it can generate very testable scientific hypotheses. Worse, this axiom generates a tautology in the public opinion. Consistently economic studies confirm the idea that leaving egoism and individualism freely operating provide the most efficient solution to a resource allocation problem. The term "efficient" in the context of economic theory seems to me to denote a stable equilibrium of market forces. The point is that the theory assumes rational egoism as an axiom and find that unconstrained egoism provide efficient (stable) outcomes.

is it not circular? are they tricking us?

[LogicIsMyOnlyGuide]

The best performers seem to me to be Liberal Democracies, apart from the middle eastern ones who generously give each citizen a few quid at birth, then the ruling kings trouser the billions of oil money for themselves.

No extreme socialist/ communist slave making economy has ever done well.

Communism/Socialist extremist philosophy= We are all equal = We all get paid the same = Why bother working your
but off when the guy next to you is drinking coffee all day and pissing about but gets the same pay?
Totally demoralising! Production has to suffer! That's why even during the cold war America had to subsidise Russia with grain exports, even though their media bragged of record crops by the brilliant farmers of Russia/USSR.

You really know shit about socialism don't you.

"We all get paid the same" Where the hell do you get crap like this from?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Please for the love of breaking down some ignorance you hold read some of Marx's work and Lenin while you are at it. You may also be interested in Trotsky as well as Mao.

Also many marxist governments where taken down by the USA after WW2 read the "who brought down the most democracies?" thread

I also like how you label it extreme well I suppose from your neo liberal life style it would appear to be extreme the changes it wants to create.

[skearn1]

The best performers seem to me to be Liberal Democracies, apart from the middle eastern ones who generously give each citizen a few quid at birth, then the ruling kings trouser the billions of oil money for themselves.

No extreme socialist/ communist slave making economy has ever done well.

Communism/Socialist extremist philosophy= We are all equal = We all get paid the same = Why bother working your
but off when the guy next to you is drinking coffee all day and pissing about but gets the same pay?
Totally demoralising! Production has to suffer! That's why even during the cold war America had to subsidise Russia with grain exports, even though their media bragged of record crops by the brilliant farmers of Russia/USSR.

America should have just stopped selling them wheat instead of building all of those expensive planes and whatnot

[TheOneKen]

You have to account for oil wealth, bozo. Compare to Germany and France, those are large enough to be statistically relevant.

[james1v]

The best performers seem to me to be Liberal Democracies, apart from the middle eastern ones who generously give each citizen a few quid at birth, then the ruling kings trouser the billions of oil money for themselves.

No extreme socialist/ communist slave making economy has ever done well.

Communism/Socialist extremist philosophy= We are all equal = We all get paid the same = Why bother working your
but off when the guy next to you is drinking coffee all day and pissing about but gets the same pay?
Totally demoralising! Production has to suffer! That's why even during the cold war America had to subsidise Russia with grain exports, even though their media bragged of record crops by the brilliant farmers of Russia/USSR.

You really know shit about socialism don't you.

"We all get paid the same" Where the hell do you get crap like this from?


As a genuine working class man who does a physical job in the construction industry... I know and have experienced more socialism/communism than you will ever read about! I am 50 years old, have lived through the seventies socialist era in Britain...Bad. Through the Tory eighties.........Badder! Worked for South Yorkshie Council ( Where my promised bonus was distributed amongst the coffee drinking shop stewards!) By the ruling SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (WITHIN A PARTY) Bosses! Nice!
Just remind me....What happened to the economy in the seventies and eighties????

Oh! forgot, Trotsky? Nice present that ice pick from his "Brothers".

By the way, Attack the argument not the person! Its the rules you know!

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Please for the love of breaking down some ignorance you hold read some of Marx's work and Lenin while you are at it. You may also be interested in Trotsky as well as Mao.

Also many marxist governments where taken down by the USA after WW2 read the "who brought down the most democracies?" thread

I also like how you label it extreme well I suppose from your neo liberal life style it would appear to be extreme the changes it wants to create.

[james1v]

The best performers seem to me to be Liberal Democracies, apart from the middle eastern ones who generously give each citizen a few quid at birth, then the ruling kings trouser the billions of oil money for themselves.

No extreme socialist/ communist slave making economy has ever done well.

Communism/Socialist extremist philosophy= We are all equal = We all get paid the same = Why bother working your
but off when the guy next to you is drinking coffee all day and pissing about but gets the same pay?
Totally demoralising! Production has to suffer! That's why even during the cold war America had to subsidise Russia with grain exports, even though their media bragged of record crops by the brilliant farmers of Russia/USSR.

America should have just stopped selling them wheat instead of building all of those expensive planes and whatnot

Quite right! Never trusted people who believe in a after life (with nuclear bombs).

[cs_atheist]

As an individual who studied government heavily throughout college, and continues to have daily dialogues with my former gov't adviser on different political issues, I've pondered this exact question for many years, but failed to come up with a grand unifying answer.

The difficulty with socialism is that it, much like communism, can work extremely well on certain scales. In the case of a country such as the United States, however, socialism would be extremely damaging to our economy (if implemented rapidly as many current liberals propose in our congress). The reason why it would be so damaging is that someone has to pay for the social programs, and that inevitably must be borne on the backs up the highest wage earners, as well as large corporations. If you heavily tax small companies, you are restricting their short term growth potential (thus restricting their ability to rapidly add jobs, which is necessary in a country our size given how many jobs we must add each month to keep up with population growth). So, if we ignore small companies, which make up a majority of the companies around the US, you must tax the large corporations more heavily. Well, this works fine and dandy, but those companies raise prices on consumers to offset their loss of profit. I'm sorry, but it's just the truth. They will not allow for their stock prices to suffer because the US government wants more money.

When you raise the price on goods and services, this mostly adversely impacts those in the lower and middle class (who spend a much larger percentage of their income on goods and services). Because we are a "borrower" society, that will just increase debt even further, because people are relatively unwilling to change their lifestyles.

So, we have a "trickle-down" effect of sorts. No, this is not the trickle down economy that Reagan talked about, it's just simple economics. Giving tax breaks to rich Americans does not ensure that middle class and lower class individuals will get more money in their pockets (although cutting taxes typically stimulates the economy and adds revenue to the US government).

Basically the two things the US fails to do that socialized countries in Europe accomplish is 100% health care coverage, better safety nets for the unemployed, and guaranteed care for the elderly (although that's not quite the case anymore, even if the system is terrible).

I am of the personal belief that people are best left to decide on their own how to spend their money. I am not a man of sympathy for those who reach retirement age and are broke because of improper planning, nor am I a sympathizer of those who fail to continue their education and are relegate to low paying wages for their lifetime. I come from an incredibly poor background, and I have single handedly paid for my education from start to finish, and will graduate in a few years with my PhD. I suppose I should have a larger heart, care about people more, but I suppose my own time in inner cities has left me jaded and unwilling to benefit many of the people I have met over my lifetime.

I wish socialism and communism worked, I truly do. A society where free thinking and choice was allowed for all, but no suffering had to exist, is a wonderful notion. But, as it stands, neither system is without flaws, and I am of the mindset that a truly free-market is the greatest way to spread individual liberties and freedoms.

[Sam Houston]

The Countries who do quite well are small and the same ones who rely on the United States to protect them.

Let's let them face the real world....see how they do?

What ya' think?

Sam

[I'm With Stupid]

The reason why it would be so damaging is that someone has to pay for the social programs, and that inevitably must be borne on the backs up the highest wage earners, as well as large corporations.

Why does someone have to pay for them? Take healthcare for example. Most of Europe manages to provide universal healthcare for around $3000 per person per year. The US government spents over $4000 per person per year on healthcare. Surely using a different model, you could use exactly the same amount of money to provide everyone with free healthcare? Hell, assuming the costs for America aren't vastly different, you could even save some money doing it this way.

And yes, having a coountry where everyone is able to reach their educational potential without being prevented by economic factors is going to result in a more productive workforce. I remember reading a report that said that Britains do more hours per week than most of Europe, but are far less productive per hour. And obviously the benefits of socialized healthcare will have an overall effect too. After all, it's better to take an hour off work to get a flu shot than a week off work when you get the flu.

[MacDoc]

The Countries who do quite well are small and the same ones who rely on the United States to protect them.

Let's let them face the real world....see how they do?

What ya' think?

Sam

Say Sam how's it feel to be a citizen of bankrupt state that is an international laughingstock.

You're as bad as FF about the "next time Canada needed help".......seems to me there is yet to be a first time......

On the other Canada was instant in helping land your airliners for which we got......no thanks from Bush.

Yanqui go home...

••

Mixed economies do very well - China and Vietnam have approached from a communist state moving towards a mix of private and social institutions. Cuba will move that way once the US stops playing silly buggers - Canada has a good relationship with Cuba.

Successful modern economies ARE a mix - even the US except the US is hilariously flawed - allowing predators loose at so many levels - even in the procurements for the largest social institution in the world...the US military.

[I'm With Stupid]

Mixed economies do very well - China and Vietnam have approached from a communist state moving towards a mix of private and social institutions.

The two fastest-growing economies on the planet if I'm not mistaken. The latter with a ridiculously high literacy rate for such a low GDP too. And the highest percentage of atheists on the planet too.

[Wuming6]

The reason why it would be so damaging is that someone has to pay for the social programs, and that inevitably must be borne on the backs up the highest wage earners, as well as large corporations.

Why does someone have to pay for them? Take healthcare for example. Most of Europe manages to provide universal healthcare for around $3000 per person per year. The US government spents over $4000 per person per year on healthcare. Surely using a different model, you could use exactly the same amount of money to provide everyone with free healthcare? Hell, assuming the costs for America aren't vastly different, you could even save some money doing it this way.

And yes, having a coountry where everyone is able to reach their educational potential without being prevented by economic factors is going to result in a more productive workforce. I remember reading a report that said that Britains do more hours per week than most of Europe, but are far less productive per hour. And obviously the benefits of socialized healthcare will have an overall effect too. After all, it's better to take an hour off work to get a flu shot than a week off work when you get the flu.

you are slightly overestimating the cost in Europe and underestimating the cost in us. In Europe we spend around 2000 and in the US the GDP share spent on Health Care is 15% but increasing to 20% in 10 years or so. At the moment this means that the per capita expenses in US for health care is $6500.

If you consider that 50 million people have no coverage at all, you realize that the real per capita spending is much higher.