��������

Should the United States Adopt Socialism?

by Matthew Carlson

With the 2020 presidential election in the United States quickly approaching, we are constantly bombarded with political ideologies that are frequently at odds with each other. Even within the Democratic Party, the range of ideas on what an ideal government looks like is enormous. The most recent surge in the Democratic Party appears to be a movement towards socialism. Those in favor of socialism talk about how it will solve the never-ending problems of poverty, hunger, healthcare, and so on, while those opposed to socialism point out the high taxes and overwhelming government control on our lives. History has shown that socialism eliminates private property (by definition), reduces allocative efficiency (i.e. reduces production of things consumers want), and lowers GDP. In socialism, not only does the government not produce what consumers want, but it produces goods and services less efficiently than businesses in a capitalist system would.

Socialism defined and how to determine if it is successful

 According to the American Century Dictionary, socialism can be defined as a “political and economic theory advocating state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” (“Socialism” 548). Under this definition, no country has ever been fully socialist or had “pure socialism” (Glen). However, some countries have had significantly more socialist policies than others, such as the Soviet Union and Venezuela.

This definition of socialism from the American Century Dictionary highlights a few differences between socialism and capitalism. First, in socialist countries, the government owns the means of production; whereas, in capitalist countries, individuals own the means of production (“Capitalism” 86). If the government owns the means of production, it must manage production rather than allowing private businesses to do so as in a capitalist country. The government must determine the quantity and quality of each good or service produced. Second, in a socialist system, the government controls distribution; whereas, in a capitalist system, distribution is determined by prices. For example, in a socialist system, healthcare or education might be given to all citizens regardless of whether or not these citizens help fund these programs; distribution is affected by more than just money. However, in a capitalist system, only those who pay for healthcare and education would receive these goods. Finally, in a socialist system, exchange is controlled by the government; whereas, in a capitalist system, exchange is largely unregulated. Very few countries, if any, are entirely capitalist or have “pure capitalism;” most are mixed economies that have elements of both capitalism and socialism.

Determining the success of capitalism or socialism can be difficult, but some measures include the following: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National Product (GNP), standard of living, political freedom, crime rate, and production of technology. Gross Domestic Product refers to the production of final goods and services in an economy in a given year. An increase in GDP implies economic growth and is usually beneficial to a country. For example, an increase in GDP might produce more tax revenue without increasing the tax rate, whereas a decrease might suggest that less tax revenue will be collected. Change in GNP reflects many similar benefits and losses but is calculated from different sources than GDP (e.g. GDP measures economic production in a geographical area whereas GNP measures economic production of the citizens regardless of their current location).

Which measures of success are most important may depend on who is making the decision. Also, it is questionable whether GDP is a good measure of success for socialist countries if the government is deciding what to make and how much to make. While a lot of a certain product might get produced, it may not be worth much to the people.

History of socialism

Before looking at how socialism might work today in the United States, it is useful to look at what has happened in the past when other countries have implemented socialist policies.

Soviet Union

One example of a socialist system was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union began in 1922 when six countries formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (“Soviet Union”). A centrally planned economy, where the government controlled all economic production and distribution in the Soviet Union, was established. The major party claimed that they could make the Soviet Union better than other countries by centrally controlling production.

At the start, the Soviet Union increased its productivity, rapidly increasing Gross National Product (GNP) by over 5% from 1928 to 1940, 1950 to 1960, and also between 1960 and 1970 (Johnston). Between 1940 and 1950, growth in GNP was only 2.2% (Johnston). This growth is thought to be a result of the Soviet Union starting out so far behind other countries. Gradually adopting the technology that these other countries had created enabled the Soviet Union to increase efficiency each year, and as a result, increase GNP. However, once the Soviet Union had adopted all the technology from these other countries, they were unable to continue to make substantial gains in GNP. Not having had to develop these technologies for themselves, they did not have the institutions or system of incentives necessary to produce new technologies, and thus, they remained dependent on other countries to improve or grow their economy (Johnston).

The lack of growth in technology or innovation may have been a result of poor incentives for individuals to find more efficient ways of doing things. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work” was a common saying among Soviet Union workers in the 1970s and 1980s (Constitutional Rights Foundation). This sentiment was largely the result of misdirected incentives. One example is a factory that fabricated metal products. This factory had a scrap metal for recycling quota and would get fined if it did not meet this quota. Whenever this factory was too efficient and did not generate the required amount of scrap metal, they would take perfectly good sheets of zinc metal and convert them into scrap. Other examples included putting the heels on the wrong end of the shoes or making raincoats that were so sticky that they could not be unfolded. The Soviet workers were more concerned with meeting quotas than making quality products. This useless production was aided by the fact that the Soviet workers’ pay was based largely on meeting quotas that did not account for the quality of the goods produced. Since as much as 40% of a manager’s salary was based on surpassing quotas, the managers had great incentives to produce just over the quota even if the quality was so bad that it made goods useless. However, they did not want to produce a lot more than the quota because it might mean higher quotas in the future (Watkins).

One thing that may have caused this system of poor incentives was the government’s inability to manage production. Factories in the Soviet Union were very inefficient by constantly producing items that were not in demand from consumers. One example of this was the production of nails. Since the government based the value of nails on weight rather than on their value to potential users, producers made only the heaviest types of nails rather than the sizes that would be most efficient (Gregory). In a free market system, the value of an item is determined by how much consumers are willing to pay for it, and production is determined by individuals or businesses based on how they can maximize profits. The central planning of the Soviet Union was unable to allocate resources as efficiently as market forces (Gregory).

Venezuela

Another country that tried to implement socialist policies is Venezuela. On December 15, 1999, Venezuela approved a new constitution. This new constitution changed the constitution from a three branch system of government like the United States (judicial, legislative, and executive) to a five branch system of government (judicial, legislative, executive, citizens, and electoral) (International IDEA). The new constitution required the government to provide free education “up to the undergraduate university level” under Article 103. It also required free healthcare to be provided by the government under Articles 83 – 85 (Constitution Project).

Had the government only implemented the socialist policies that were required by the constitution (e.g. free education and healthcare) it would probably not be considered socialist. However, the government created more and more socialist policies, eventually making Venezuela one of the most socialist countries in the world. The Economic Freedom of the World index measures how countries rank in having a free market economy, the first rank being the closest to a free market economy and the last rank being the farthest from a free market economy (i.e. closer to socialism) (Hidalgo, “Socialism”). Venezuela got the very last rank (162 of 162) in the Economic Freedom of the World report in 2019. However, Venezuela might not actually be the most socialist country in the world because countries such as North Korea and Cuba are not ranked. These two countries are not ranked because reliable information cannot be obtained from these countries. If such information was available, it would no doubt create great competition for the last spot (Hidalgo, “Socialism”).

Although it may not be the most socialist country in the world, Venezuela is definitely far from a free market economy and its socialist policies have dramatically hurt Venezuela’s efficiency. In 2001, Venezuela was the wealthiest country in South America and was perhaps the best example of the success of socialism (Callum). Venezuela was the owner of one of the largest reserves of crude oil, but fell into the trap of becoming a “petro-state”—a system that becomes dependent on revenue from oil to fund their government. They were dependent on exporting oil to fund their socialist policies. After oil prices dropped in 2016, Venezuela no longer had the revenue it needed to continue funding the expensive socialist policies (Labrador). While the initial problem of oil prices declining was not caused by the socialists, the socialists were unable to deal with the loss of revenue. Their system had insufficient means saved to maintain the system. Unable to pay for the expensive government operations without the revenue from oil, Venezuela printed more money to pay for these systems, rather than cut its budget, and this caused massive inflation, which eventually made Venezuela’s currency of little value (Hidalgo, “Venezuela”).

The government’s lack of foresight on changes such as a drop in oil prices may have been due to poor policy on the part of the government officials. These officials were probably voted in by people who did not realize the lack of protection that existed in the government to continue normal operations in the event of a decrease in oil prices. Rather, most of these people probably voted in the officials that gave them what they wanted in the short term without thought for possible changes that might occur in the future. While this type of problem could happen in either capitalist or socialist systems, it is more serious in a socialist system where the government is the only “business.” If the government did not prepare for the drop in oil prices, then no one did. In a capitalist system, there may have been a few businesses that anticipated this type of problem and would have prepared, even if the majority did not prepare. In a capitalist economy, such as the United States, the government would not lose as much revenue because they only make a fraction of the profit on any one industry through taxes, rather than owning the whole industry and incurring all of the profits and losses. Also, in a capitalist system, there is an incentive to avoid such losses of revenue since private businesses and investors in private businesses would be absorbing most of the profits/losses. They would have great incentive to pay close attention to potential problems like an increase in supply or a decrease in demand and react accordingly. Thus, in this case, private businesses would have been better suited for controlling production than the government.

The government in Venezuela also had regulations on exchange that caused shortages of food and medicine (Hidalgo, “How Socialism”). For instance, price ceilings were placed on multiple items and this reduced the profits earned by those producing these goods. Since producers were not making profits, there was no incentive to keep producing. These producers exited the market, causing production to decrease and shortages to become even worse (Martino). The government also began taking goods from businesses that the government claimed the businesses were “hoarding.” This may have decreased supply in the long run because it decreased incentives for businesses to produce goods when the government might just take them away (Hidalgo, “How Socialism”). Milton Friedman said, “If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there’ll eventually be a shortage of sand.” While he was not necessarily serious about this, it does seem to have been a general trend in Venezuela—wherever the government got involved, it created shortages and inefficiency (Hidalgo, “How Socialism”).

Corruption was another problem that existed in the government. It is estimated that as much as a third of the one trillion dollars of revenue Venezuela made in the last 10 years on oil was unaccounted for and is suspected to have been stolen (Hidalgo, “Venezuela”). If corruption, such as stealing within the oil industry, had happened in a capitalist system, it would have more likely involved private companies, rather than the government. This would have helped to minimize the damage done to the economy. For example, in a business, if funds are being stolen internally, the business can eventually fail. Investors can take their money elsewhere or business owners can close down the business if their profits are not high enough. In a socialist system, the government is likely the entity being stolen from. The government cannot necessarily just shut down to eliminate corruption. Also, without competition, the government may not even know that they are being stolen from because they have no way of knowing if they are operating at maximum efficiency. Since private businesses shutting down will not cause problems for the whole economy, private ownership (as opposed to government ownership) is an advantage in the event of corruption.

Venezuela was similar to the Soviet Union. Neither the Soviet Union nor Venezuela had an economy that could sustain itself. Instead, they relied on other nations to continue their usual operations, and both of these socialist systems eventually failed.

United States

A lesser known example of a country that has tried socialism at various times throughout its history is the United States. For example, in the Plymouth settlement, the means of production (land) were owned by the government. The government controlled distribution by providing everyone an equal amount of food. Although exchange was not regulated, there was not much to trade. All crops grown were stored in common store houses and were distributed to all the colonists – not just to those who had grown them. This system did not give much incentive to work, and as a result, little work was done, resulting in a great shortage of food. To solve this problem, the governor allowed privatization of production of crops. Privatization was accomplished by allocating available land to families based on the number of people in that family. This greatly increased an individual’s incentive to work because they would be the one going hungry if they did not work. The new system was very successful (Bradford 114). The Plymouth Settlement got rid of its socialist system because it did not provide enough incentive for productivity.

Jamestown had a similar problem. In Jamestown, the land was owned by the London Company. All crops were owned by the London Company and the people worked on these crops which were stored in a common storehouse and distributed equally to the people. Like the Plymouth settlement, this system lacked incentives to work, and eventually 3 acres of land were given to each person. This improved the system because supervision was not as necessary and incentives for productivity were increased. Thus, the Jamestown colonies represent another example where private property increased production (Chandler 60).

General effects of socialism

From looking at these and other examples of countries that have tried socialism, it is clear that the use of socialist policies can have many negative effects on a country. For example, it has been estimated that if the United States were to implement the socialist policies of Venezuela (e.g. free healthcare, free college, etc.), it would decrease GDP by 40% (The Opportunity Costs of Socialism). Venezuela was able to afford such policies for a while because of its profit off of natural resources. However, when the revenue from oil dropped, Venezuela could no longer afford its usual policies. As another example, if the United States were to implement the socialist policies of the Nordic countries, our average standard of living would likely decrease. Nordic countries have living standards 15% lower than the United States (The Opportunity Costs of Socialism). Socialist policies tend to have negative consequences. However, it is necessary to analyze individual policies or groups of similar policies to determine whether central planning or market forces are more efficient.

As a general trend, socialism decreases the efficiency at which the economy can operate. However, in some cases, such as the military, government control or production is necessary. In a situation known as “market failure,” problems such as “lack of competition, externalities, public goods or information problems” cause market forces to result in inefficient outcomes (Gwartney et al. 106). For example, national defense could be provided more easily and efficiently using central planning rather than market forces. One reason for this is the free rider problem that would result if the national defense were controlled by private businesses. National defense is a “public good”—a good or service that is “nonrival in consumption and nonexcludable” (Gwartney et al. 102)—and thus is better controlled by central planning. It is therefore necessary to analyze each individual policy and determine whether central planning and government control could produce these goods or services more efficiently than market forces and individual control.

The history of socialism has revealed a few questions that should be considered when examining whether or not a policy will be efficient under central planning. First, would the new system create or maintain incentives for developing new technology or innovation? The Soviet Union’s system lacked incentives for developing new technology and hence, had to depend on other countries. Second, would the system maintain incentives for productivity as well as quality? The Soviet Union’s system had people who were making defective products because they were rewarded for achieving their quotas, even if the quality of the product was poor. Third, can the government afford it currently as well as in the long run? Venezuela had a lot of socialist policies like free healthcare and education that cost the government a lot of money. Although they could afford it for a time, when the oil prices dropped, Venezuela could not generate enough revenue to afford its own policies. Since tax rates can only be raised so far before the total tax revenue starts to decrease, taxes can only generate a limited amount of revenue (Chappelow).

As an example, consider social security. Social security works by using a payroll tax to generate revenue. This revenue is put into a trust fund and the government then replaces the money with an IOU and spends the money. In theory, we pay into social security while we are working to fund those who are retired and then when we retire, we are funded by those who are currently working. However, this system fails to consider the question of whether the government will be able to afford it in the long run. In times when there are more people depending on the system than paying into the system, the government could end up running out of money. Thus, this may not be a program that the government can afford long-term. If the general lifespan stays high and no changes are made to the system, social security will not be able to pay for itself. The government could be forced to raise taxes or cut other programs. However, there may be a problem getting politicians to cut back on spending if special interest groups are opposed to it. Thus, before the government ever starts funding new programs, it must count the cost and make sure these programs are affordable both now and in the future (Gwartney et al. 348).

Assessing Elizabeth Warren’s plan

Another program that could be analyzed to assess whether socialism would be effective is government controlled healthcare—a key issue in the 2020 election. Former 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, during her campaign, created a detailed plan for government funded healthcare. Like Venezuela, Elizabeth Warren proposed a plan to implement free healthcare. Elizabeth Warren’s plan considers it “non-negotiable” that any “American should ever, ever die or go bankrupt because of health care costs” (Warren). While this sounds like an excellent goal, the practicality of this idea will put the whole healthcare system (including life and death decisions) in the hands of the government and will likely lead to poorer treatment overall. Warren proposed funding healthcare entirely by the government through taxes and removing costs to the individual (Warren). In this system, it would be necessary for the government to pay for every possible healthcare good and service or ban individuals from being able to purchase healthcare elsewhere (to keep cost from being a factor that could exclude someone from receiving healthcare). There are many extremely expensive procedures and drugs (including drugs specifically developed for a single person) that could lengthen a person’s life. Currently, only very wealthy people can afford these options, which Warren views as unfair. However, the government cannot pay for this level of treatment for every person in the country. In a universal healthcare system, the government would have to decide who is “worth” the expensive procedures or ban them altogether.

In addition to the cost of healthcare as a whole, Warren specifically expressed concern over the costs of life saving drugs, such as insulin. To make drugs more affordable, Warren planned to cap the price of drugs in the United States at 110% of the international price. The problem with this is that the cost of developing, testing, and obtaining FDA approval for new drugs is enormous (DiMasi, et al.). The United States produces 43.7% of all new drugs in the world (Keyhani, et al.). However, to afford the cost of developing these new drugs, pharmaceutical companies need to make a large profit on the drugs they are currently producing. The estimated cost of developing a new drug, advancing it through clinical trials, and obtaining FDA approval is roughly $2.87 billion (DiMasi, et al.). For context, Merck’s (a large pharmaceutical company) gross income in 2018 was $29.38 billion (MarketWatch). Thus, the cost of developing a single new drug is approximately 10% of their annual income, and they are working on many possible drugs at the same time. If Warren’s plan were implemented, many pharmaceutical companies would likely be forced to downsize their research departments. Additionally, if companies refuse to comply with the required price ceiling, her plan was to override their patents and produce the drugs with public funds (Warren). This threat would further discourage companies from investing in developing new procedures and drugs. Warren’s plan would likely lead to the same problem the Soviet Union faced. The Soviet Union did not produce much innovation or technology because there was little incentive to do so (Johnston).

One major concern with universal healthcare is how to finance it, and Warren’s plan expects to generate revenue from sources that are not guaranteed. Warren’s financial plan is mainly based on “static estimates” (Johnson, et al.; Warren). “Static estimates” assume that the new policies will not have secondary effects that counteract the purpose of the policy. If these estimates are “purely static,” they do not take into account a possible reduction in the tax base and as a result, may be overestimating the amount of revenue that will be collected (Understanding Dynamic Scoring).

One way the tax base could decrease would be if some people quit working. People who work in order to afford health insurance might not work if they could get it free from the government. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it was estimated that the number of hours worked would decrease by 1.5 to 2% (“Labor Market”). This is equivalent to 2 – 2.5 million full-time workers and the reduction would likely be even greater if healthcare were free. If fewer people are working, then Warren’s plan of collecting the money that employers pay for healthcare would decrease because there would be fewer employees (Warren). Also, fewer employees would cause revenue from income taxes to decrease. This could create a shortage of revenue elsewhere in the government.

Even if Warren’s plan were currently affordable, it would not necessarily be affordable in the future. For example, Venezuela had free healthcare and was able to afford it until oil prices dropped and there was a significant decrease in revenue. Since their universal health care policy would not allow for a reduction in spending, they quickly went bankrupt. This lack of flexibility increases the chance that the government will run out of money (Warren; Johnson, et al.). A decrease in revenue could happen in the United States as well. It has been estimated that “nationalizing payments for the healthcare sector” would decrease GDP by 9% (The Opportunity Costs of Socialism).

Even if the government was able to collect the tax revenue that Warren anticipates, this does not guarantee that it will be enough to provide satisfactory healthcare. There is no set cost of healthcare because more money could always be spent on more tests, more expensive procedures, more drugs, etc. Therefore, someone has to make decisions on how to limit healthcare spending. In a free market economy, individuals determine how much they are willing to spend on healthcare. Individuals and their families decide if an excessively expensive procedure is worth it. This creates a level of demand and businesses respond accordingly by increasing or decreasing production and investment spending. In a socialist system, the government decides how to allocate healthcare resources, which may not reflect the preferences of individuals.

Conclusion

Having considered the history of socialism, it is clear that neither “pure socialism” nor “pure capitalism” is ideal. A mixed economy would likely be the best option. For any given good or service, central planning will only work if the government is able to afford the service long-term, and if there are sufficient and appropriate incentives for people to work and produce large amounts of high quality product.

With the Soviet Union and early American colonies, there was a lack of incentives for productivity. In Venezuela, there was a temporary shortage of revenue. The problem with these systems was that they were dependent on other countries. The Soviet Union was dependent on other countries for new technology and innovation. Venezuela was dependent on other countries to buy their oil. The Plymouth and Jamestown settlements were dependent on England and the indigenous people to provide them with food (Nichols; “Preface”; Price).

Given the devastating effects that socialism has caused in the past, any socialist policies proposed in the United States should be carefully examined. Several of the top democratic candidates for the 2020 election have advocated for socialist policies. For example, Warren proposed implementing government-funded healthcare so that no “American should ever, ever die or go bankrupt because of health care costs” (Warren). However, based on history, this plan could bankrupt the government, decrease our production of new technology and innovation, and/or lead to substandard healthcare overall. While some government control is necessary, the free market system generates a supply and demand system that stimulates innovation, increases productivity, and leads to a higher quality of life.

Works Cited

Bradford, William. “Chapter IV.” Bradford’s History of The Plymouth Settlement, translated by Valerian Paget, John McBride Company, 1909, pp. 110 – 131. Google Books,

Callum, Brodie. “Venezuela Was Once South America’s Richest Country. Here’s What Went Wrong.” World Economic Forum, 7 Aug. 2017,

“Capitalism.” The American Century Dictionary, edited by Laurence Urdang, Warner Books, 1995, p. 86.

Chandler, Julian A. C. “Chapter IV: Edwin Sandys.” Makers of Virginia History, Silver, Burdett and Company, 1904, pp. 55 – 66. Google Books, .
com/books?id=tDoSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q&f=false

Chappelow, Jim. “Laffer Curve.” Investopedia, 1 May 2020,
.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp#:~:targetText=Higher%20income%20tax%20rates%20decrease,decrease%20in%20total%20tax%20revenue

Constitute Project. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)’s Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2009, translated by Jefri J. Ruchti, 2012,

Constitutional Rights Foundation. “Bill of Rights in Action 19.1: Life under Communism in Eastern Europe,” 2020,

“Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2019.” World Population Review, 2020,

DiMasi, Joseph A., et al. “Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: New Estimates of R&D.” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 47, 2016, pp. 20-33. Science Direct,

Glen, Jeffrey. “Communism vs. Socialism.” Business Dictionary, 2013,

Gregory, Paul. “Why Socialism Fails.” Hoover Institution, 10 Jan. 2018,

Gwartney, James D., et al. Microeconomics Private and Public Choice. 16th ed., Cengage Learning, 2016.

Hidalgo, Juan Carlos. “How Socialism Has Destroyed Venezuela.” CATO Institute, 25 Feb. 2014,

—. “Socialism or Economic Mismanagement? Who Is to Blame for Venezuela’s Plight?” CATO Institute, 13 Feb. 2019,

—. “Venezuela Is on the Verge of a Massive Humanitarian and Economic Collapse. the Culprit? Socialism.” CATO Institute, 13 Aug. 2018,

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). “Constitutional History of Venezuela.” Constitution Net: Supporting Constitution Builders Globally, 2016.

Johnson, Simon, et al. “Medicare For All Revenue Letter.” 31 Oct. 2019,

Johnston, Matthew. “Why the USSR Collapsed Economically.” Investopedia, 17 Feb. 2016,

Keyhani, Salomeh, et al. “US Pharmaceutical Innovation in an International Context.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 100, no. 6, Jun. 2010, pp. 1075 – 1080. National Center for Biotechnology Information, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.178491

“Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates.” The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024, Feb. 2014, pp. 117 – 127. Congressional Budget Office,

Labrador, Cara “Venezuela: The Rise and Fall of a Petrostate.” Council on Foreign Relations, 24 Jan. 2019,

Maddison, Angus. “Volume II: Historical Statistics.” The World Economy, Centre of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2006, pp. 392 – 643.

MarketWatch. MarketWatch, Inc., 2020,

Martino, Daniel Di. “How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela.” Economics 21, 21 Mar. 2019,

Mitchell, Daniel. “Is Denmark a Socialist Country? Part 1.” CNSNews, 30 Apr. 2019,

Nichols, Roger L., editor. The American Indian: Past and Present. 3rd ed., Newbery Award Records, Inc, 1986. Google Books,

“Preface.” Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, edited by Lyon Gardiner Tyler, 1915, pp. 3 – 6. Google Books,
PA5&lpg=PA5&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

Price, David A. “Jamestown Colony.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc, 25 Feb. 2019,

The Opportunity Costs of Socialism. The Council of Economic Advisers, Oct. 2019,

“Socialism.” The American Century Dictionary, edited by Laurence Urdang, Warner Books, 1995, p. 548.

“Soviet Union.” History, 1 Sep. 2017,

Understanding Dynamic Scoring. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 31 May 2012,

Warren, Elizabeth. “Ending the Stranglehold of Health Care Costs on American Families.” Warren Democrats, 2020

Watkins, Thayer. “The Stalin Model for the Control and Coordination of Enterprises in a Socialist Economy.” Applet-magic.com,

Youngberg, David. “3 Ways Regulation Makes Health Care Expensive.” Foundation for Economic Education, Mar. 2018,