I'll respond using only quotes from prior posts. Your quotes are in bold, mine in italics.

Why is it this new economy hasn't managed to do the same in the same time period?

A reccent study done by the World Bank on the topic has found that from 1999-2007 income per capita has raised more than 50%, while lifting 50 million people out of poverty.

Again, they were behind by a very small amount

From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period. For example, even in Moscow and St. Petersburg children reached no more than the 20 percentile of U.S. childthgrowth prior to World War II, suggesting widespread stunting of children during that period. But substantial and rapid improvements in child height and birth weight were recorded in subsequent years; as a result by the late 1960s children in some regions reached the 50 percentile of U.S.the child growth."

The peak of child growth for the soviets only reached the US's 50 percentile.

"[the] USSR at one point surpassed US consumption growth, growth being the key word, for their actual consumption was not in parity with the US's by any means: "While the consumption growth record seems clear, it should be kept in mind that this growth took place in the context of a relatively low initial level of consumption, particularly incomparison with the U.S. and the OECD. As a result, even with rapid growth the absolute level of household consumption remained well below that of the United States throughout the postwar period."

But, again, declare your hallow victory; I wouldn't want you to feel insecure...None of what you have stated has been born out by the facts, none, yet you have decided you've won.

Instead you chose to use rhetoric, and a surprisingly amount of it too.

Before I begin, it's necessary to note that whether or not the specific statements I made are accurate, you entirely missed the point of my reply. The only point I was making was that one should accept or reject capitalism on a scientific and theoretical basis, rather than appeals to emotion and subjectivity which can obviously be bent and contrived to support any ideology, and have no instrinsic baring on macro-economics, so much as it is propraganda and misconception.

The ignorance of the Soviet Union you display is deep and profound (and in so few words!) -- Of the criminal poverty the majority of the soviet people lived; of the incessant tyranny and stagnation -- and of the only relief coming from underground markets, and ultimately the sweeping reforms after the Union collapsed from what was in essense natural summation of a brute communist system. Following the liberalization (ie. capitalization) of the reforms, millions of Russians and eastern europeans have been raised out of poverty, and their prospering economy has raised the average wages and income of a Russian by 50%, and it continues to go up.

To begin, the Soviet Union's living standards didn't begin to improve until the "Khrushchev Thaw", essentially a liberalization reform which gave the dramatically more freedom to move and trade, and a host of other things like the uncensoring of books and integration into the international community. This increased their social freedoms, as well as their economic freedom, especially for the desitute peasents who immediately migrated after their liberation. It was in essense and intent a de-Stalinization, but not only did it weaken the grip of totalitarianism, but also of the Communist party which began to weaken thereafter. I bring this up because to speak of a "standards of living" in parity with the US in a Pre-Khrushchev USSR would be a henious absurdity. Even if their incomes were comparable (and they weren't nearly) they would have been worthless under a Stalin.

This does not mean that all was merry. Workers were still enormously underpaid and Khrushchevs attempt to ballance it with a minimum wage was too little and too late. These reforms were short lived, for when Brezhnev stepped in and stagnation ensued the hopes that the USSR could be formidable and free under increasingly liberal policy were squelched. The poverty that the majority of the Soviet Union suffered (not enjoyed as you'd liked to say) through it history was not vanquished until it's collapse and the sweeping economic reforms that necessarily followed.

As mentioned ealier, Russia and other post Soviet countries didn't fully adopt the reforms necessary for productivity and at first was very lopsided, which was amplified by what economist call a "transition recession", but when this subsided the capitalist system took effect and since the countries of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union experienced a productivity surge that over the past decade has driven up the living standards and reduced poverty. The difference this time, was that the growth the newly liberalized societies amassed was legitimate instead of the brute force growth of traditional communist economies.

A reccent study done by the World Bank on the topic has found that from 1999-2007 income per capita has raised more than 50%, while lifting 50 million people out of poverty (which is an illustration of what Jeffery Sach's wants to see in the poorest parts of Africa.)

“The transition from centrally planned to market economies has freed up an entrepreneurial energy that always existed, but rarely had the chance to make itself felt,” said Shigeo Katsu, Vice-President for the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia Region. “The rise in productivity in the region has brought higher sales and more profits to businesses so they can pay more in wages and invest in new technologies. At the same time, it is critical that the countries of the region do not relax, but rather, build on this success and become even more productive, thus competitive, so that they can achieve their aspiration of catching up with Western European living standards.”

In light of the scientific data and historical context, the first true taste of social freedom were the liberal reforms of the USSR's "Thaw", and Yeltsin's call for Russian normalcy, ie. democracy and a market economy. Russia and Poland etc. are still in the shadow of the United States (by the way, your use of parity is practically criminal) but they are begining to catch up as the straight jacket of the socialist system is shed.

I still have one question. How could you be so wrong? The USSR is the, in matter of fact, an excellent example of the powers of Capitalism! The irony! Knowing, from our previous discussions, that your research is normally very superficial and dogmatically misinterpreted, it is not surprising that you mistake the USSRs comparable growth with the United States as meaning similar living standards. The fallacy is in not recongizing how artificial growth is in a socialist system. It is necessarily forced by the state, and doesn't correlate with the wealth of the people. GDP per capita is used by level headed economists for understanding the wealth of a market economy. Put differently, economic growth in a capitalist system and a socialist system is a false analogy.

Russia and the former USSR is just one case study. Poverty has dropped, and income raised in India, China, Chile, Bolivia, all of the former USSR like Poland and Russia, after the transition to a predominately capitalist system.

Cuba is another case which I could write twice as much about as I have for the Soviet Union, however I'll avoid boring you. Instead I'll make it short and simply. You are false. The living standards in Cuba for the overwhelming majority is virtual desitution. It is a sign of both your ignorance and desperation to state otherwise. Cubans deal perpetually with food rations that are always too little and (unless you like rice) are bland and empty in nutrience. The average Cuban normally goes to bed hungry. It is not at all comparable to the United States in this aspect. The average Cuban lives on about 8 dollars a day (a MacDonalds like Hamburger is $3 dollars there according to one site).

I could literally go on for pages about the deplorable conditions of the average Cuban, but it would be belabouring. Any knowledable person should be aware of what life in communist Cuba is like (it wasn't dramatically beter before the sanctions either.) It is miserable. And to say its "in parity" with the US is sickening stupidity. The poorest of the poor in America are better off than the average Cuban, both in living standards and potential opportunity. I shouldn't have to explain these things to you.

On the United States: It is a correlation = causation fallacy to say that the US is booming because it is increasingly "socialistic" (which is an infantile term for what it is). The US has always, save the depression and the odd recession, been in steady economic growth. It is mere accident that new deal ("socialist") politics and the industrial boom of the second world war coincided. There have been innumerable studies showing that the New Deal had practically nothing to do with Americas booming economy, and if anything stifled it. As for other shifts towards welfare etc., they have been more or less failures, such as Social Security; public education; transportation like Amtrak; welfare (the negative effects have been partly reversed since reforms); exessive money printing causing stagflation; creating bubbles (including the housing fiasco); piling debts; corporate welfare ie. subsidization; public housing; affirmative action; gun control; and the list of failures goes on. The U.S. economy, however, is very resillient and has grown despite these obstacles that have empirically done nothing to help.

I think I'll stop here, for I've given you enough to chew on. I will only say on the subject of Venezuela, that you have an incredibly simplistic view of their economy. Venezuela is facing many problems but their main sucess is not due to their socialism -- on the contrary: that's the root of its problems (inflation; concentrated power; shortages; volitility). Its sucesses, however, can be positively aligned with Venezuela's state capitalism, ie. a command control economy based on market principles. It could be called a mixed economy, but that is misleading. However, if you are going to reply (and you no doubt will), lets keep this short. At least shorter than my long windedness. That just means you don't have to reply to all of this at once.