: Not accurate at all. Fisrt of all, what do you mean by "poor"? If you measuer by standard-of-living, socialist nations invariably have ahigher standard-of-living than similarly placed capitalist ones. (Cuba is the higehst in latin America, kerala the highets in India, etc.)
It might be important to point out that Latin America's standard of living isn't all that great, so your not really saying much for Cuba there. And Kerala's (wherever that is!) is higher than India's? Ooo! That's a difficult acheivement! Under capitalism, individuals have more control to set their own standard of living. There is no reason why every citizen shouldn't be a high school graduate, since it's FREE! However, social problems get in the way, and no economic system can fix that.
:If you mean in terms of econbomic growth, then Nicaragua and Burkian Faso both far outpaced tehir capitalist neighbors. Finally, Scandinavia is semi-socialist, and they ahve teh highets stnadard of living in teh world- I'd hardly call them poor.
Economic growth runs in cycles, and smaller nations can easily grow much faster than the giant U.S. Scandinavia is "semi-socialist"? Could you also call it "semi-capitalist"? Depends on which way you look at it.
I'm not sure how putting everyone on an equal economic standing is supposed to fix many social problems. Why are rich people no happier than many poor people?