There are other things contribute to this issue, like Kim Jong Li's “military first” policy, or Soviet style planning focused economic structure. But you have to understand that, international trade is absolutely essential for any economy to develop. It is inefficient or down right impossible for any country to produce everything on its own.
The other two respondents both give good answers. Basically, the more government control a society has, especially over the economy, the less prosperous people there will tend to be in the long run. I say "in the long run" because obviously if people in a particular jurisdiction have a certain degree of prosperity, it may take a while for the negative effects of statism to be felt. Venezuela is a terrific example of a country that was relatively prosperous, being blessed with oil, which has just been wrecked by statist policies, first under Hugo Chavez and now his hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro. These effects are predictable – I remember reading about Chavez's agenda when he first came to power and Venezuela was still doing relatively well and thinking, "that country does not have a bright future". But at the time, Chavez was a media darling; many people in the United States were saying laudatory things about him and the movement that brought him to power. Not so much any more.
Do you really have to ask?
Which was prosperous and which was poor, East Germany or West Germany?
The answer is OBVIOUS, except possibly to an idiot Marxist professor at Harvard.
There are other things contribute to this issue, like Kim Jong Li's “military first” policy, or Soviet style planning focused economic structure. But you have to understand that, international trade is absolutely essential for any economy to develop. It is inefficient or down right impossible for any country to produce everything on its own.
Read more @ https://www.traditionessaysonline.com/
The other two respondents both give good answers. Basically, the more government control a society has, especially over the economy, the less prosperous people there will tend to be in the long run. I say "in the long run" because obviously if people in a particular jurisdiction have a certain degree of prosperity, it may take a while for the negative effects of statism to be felt. Venezuela is a terrific example of a country that was relatively prosperous, being blessed with oil, which has just been wrecked by statist policies, first under Hugo Chavez and now his hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro. These effects are predictable – I remember reading about Chavez's agenda when he first came to power and Venezuela was still doing relatively well and thinking, "that country does not have a bright future". But at the time, Chavez was a media darling; many people in the United States were saying laudatory things about him and the movement that brought him to power. Not so much any more.