Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).
LOL
I guess you're right so long as you ignore these examples...
- North Korea vs South Korea
- East Germany vs West Germany post WWII
- East Germany under USSR vs. East Germany after unification
- Haiti vs. Dominican Republic
- Cuba vs. Costa Rica
- Any Chinese City vs. Hong Kong
- China vs. Taiwan
- China under communism vs. China today
- India pre-market reformations vs. India post-market reformations
- Any Malaysian City vs. Singapore
- Vietnam vs. Singapore
- UK vs. Ireland over the past 20 years
- Chile pre-Pinochet vs post-Pinochet (not that Pinochet wasn't also a violent douchebag)
- Venezuela vs Chile
- Zimbabwe vs South Africa
- Burma vs. Thailand
- Syria vs. United Arab Emirates
- Communist Estonia vs. Post-USSR Estonia
- Soviet Russia vs. Russia post 1989
And surely I needn't mention US history from 1776 up through about 1920, when it was actually a generally capitalist, free-market nation and grew from mere peasantry to the world super power in 150 years.
Every single example above compares a territory that is/was more centrally planned vs a territory that is/was more free. And you're going to tell me there's a "proven track record that centrally planned nations have much better standards of living?"
I guess this is what government-monopolized public education gets us...
I went to a private college, thanks. You're probably the product of public (or no) education, hence why think it's valid to compare these countries while ignoring what other forces and historical events got them to where they are now.