: : : No, Kerala stands on its own as THE example to follow. The Swedes still live better than we do, by the way. And the poor in Kerala live longer than the poorest in America.
: : No, it seems that Kerala doesn't stand on its own at all. It has funds coming in from the Indian government and from its own citizens working elsewhere in the world. So it doesn't support itself, and cannot be classified as a success.
: Is that your primary definition of success? By that logic New Mexico is a failure and Hitler's Germany was a success. Great.
Don: Let's give it the benifit of the doubt, and say that it has great achievements. If these achievements depend upon outside funding, what will it do without this outside funding? Shouldn't the outside sources get part of the credit? How can it be held up as an example to emulate?
Don: I am not claiming New Mexico is a failure. That is *your* strawman. I would not hold up any individual state as an example of capitalist success, unless I could show it can support itself.