Still doesn't answer my question, I was waiting for you to say bolivia so I could remind you that this short term stability hinges on the massive inflation of price of the natural resources that are abundant and their main export, yet despite that there's still a consistent uptick in inflation compared to capitalist countries too.

Americans can learn a lot from European nations. Lower crime rates, universal education and universal health system. Higher taxes is a small price to pay for a fairer and more equal society.

The U.S actually has a higher tertiary education attainment rate than all European countries except for Russia and Luxembourg. What it's lacking is a robust skilled labor-force (like Germany's.) Academia isn't everything. Secondary education is pretty lackluster in the U.S despite being universal. There are many reasons why, but no easy solutions unfortunately. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment

"This is a list of countries by 25- to 64-year-olds having completed tertiary education as published by the OECD."

Country	Age 25-64 (%)	Age	Year	Non-OECD
25-34 (%)	35-44 (%)	45-54 (%)	55-64 (%)
Canada	54	58	61	51	45	2014
Russia	54	58	55	53	50	2013
Israel	49	46	53	48	47	2014
Japan	48	59	53	47	35	2014
Luxembourg	46	53	56	40	32	2014
South Korea	45	68	56	33	17	2014
United States	44	46	47	43	41	2014
Australia	42	48	46	38	33	2014
Finland	42	40	50	44	34	2014
Norway	42	49	49	36	32	2014
United Kingdom	42	49	46	38	35	2014
Ireland	41	51	49	34	24	2014
Switzerland	40	46	45	38	31	2014
Sweden	39	46	46	32	30	2014
Estonia	38	40	39	35	36	2014
Belgium	37	44	42	34	26	2014
Iceland	37	41	42	36	29	2014
Lithuania	37	53	38	30	28	2014
Denmark	36	42	41	33	29	2014
New Zealand	36	40	41	32	29	2014
Spain	35	41	43	30	21	2014
Netherlands	34	44	38	30	27	2014
France	32	44	39	26	20	2013
Austria	30	38	33	27	21	2014
Latvia	30	39	31	27	23	2014
Slovenia	29	38	35	24	18	2014
Greece	28	39	27	26	21	2014
Germany	27	28	29	26	25	2014
Poland	27	43	32	18	14	2014
Hungary	23	32	25	20	17	2014
Colombia	22	28	23	18	16	2014
Czech Republic	22	30	21	20	15	2014
Portugal	22	31	26	17	13	2014
Saudi Arabia	22	26	22	18	14	2013
Chile	21	27	24	17	14	2013
Slovakia	20	30	21	15	14	2014
Mexico	19	25	17	16	13	2014
Costa Rica	18	21	19	17	17	2014
Italy	17	24	19	13	12	2014
Turkey	17	25	16	10	10	2014
Brazil	14	15	14	14	11	2013
China	10	18	9	6	4	2010
Indonesia	8	10	9	8	4	2011
South Africa	7	5	7	8	7	2012

You already gave the answer on why private companies run better than government.

They have the need to profit, so their process are make as efficient as possible, with cost reduction as a need and also driving prices down to get more customers also having to take care of debts.

While government just raise tax to cover holes, give themselves higher salary independent of their performance, are very tolerant with their debt, don't depend on the population liking or wanting the service to take the money and finally the most important point is that a big centralized government can't know the demands of every single small area on the country.

Sure summarizing People want higher wages doing less work while also paying less for more product (an antithesis that can only be met by increasing productivity and lowering other costs, unless of course government impose several restrictions that make that balance impossible). That is basically also why Socialism wouldn't ever work.

As a doctorate student in political theory, studying post-Marxism, the author is wrong. It is complete misinformation and skews over many topics whilst oversimplifying others.

Socialism = The form of capitalism that strives towards a more economically egalitarian arrangement, usually by focusing on state control of industries and trade, high taxation. In its most typical form, socialism is a mere policy line and in our days it should be seen as an inverse form of austerity economics (where focus is not placed on egalitarianism, but instead on protecting capital and investment at the expense of the low and middle class prosperity). Austerity is now the neo-con equivalent to the left-winger's socialism. Both systems are part and parcel of neoliberal capitalism and form the redemptive and pragmatic faces of the same thing. Scandinavian countries are closest to a healthy form of democracy with socialist aims. Marxism should not be conflated with either socialism nor Leninism.

...but it wasn't real socialism. /s

Socialism - any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 

Venezuela was the 4th GDP in the world under colonialism, and now socialism and dependence on global oil prices has stricken them into poverty. I'm still waiting for Socialism not to fail it's people. You can't point to Sweden anymore. For one, it's economic policies shifted capitalist during its economic boom, and two it's now on pace to become a third world country by 2030 according to the UN. 

I prefer capitalism, and I prefer enforcement that prevents monopolies, but ironically many current regulations in place actually help corporations and kill competition. The regulation debate is a totally different thing, but overall I prefer private ownership of companies. I oppose socialism for its historical failures time and time again and also the deaths that socialist leadership has led to because communists time and time again abuse their power and enslave their people. However, I also oppose the global central banking systems and foreigners being able to purchase land in a country they do not live in which is what I consider the problems with current American economic policy. We have a massive problem in America where Chinese, Russian, and foreign Jewish bankers own a lot of American land. I can't find the chart I'm looking for, but basically it allows these groups own a lot more land than one would think reasonable and they sit on high house prices even if no one is buying which is only going to lead more people into debt. 

Ah the blame socialism excuse when capitalism is in danger, classic .

The problem with the social democratic definition of socialism is that it throws every other socialist under the bus. Since socdems want to work within the capitalist framework and other socialists want to replace the capitalist system, the two definitions become irreconcilable. Perhaps we should abandon the socialist label in public and just go with Marxism/communism for the Marx inspired ideologies and anarchist for the others.

Also Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably to mean the same thing. Social democrats today are more or less the reformists from Marx's time although most of them have abandoned the goal of replacing capitalism. Chavez was the notable example of a modern social democrat that attempted to achieve socialism through reform with his "Socialism of the 21st century". The 1888 English preface to the Communist Manifesto includes an explanation from Engles why the text is not called the socialist manifesto, since the word 'socialist' has increasingly become associated with a middle class movement instead of a working class movement. Lenin built upon Marx & Engles' ideas in the Russian context and one of his ideas was calling the lower stage of communism, "socialism", essentially trying to reclaim the term. However all this has now done is create more confusion, since now "socialism" (social democracy) is conflated with Soviet "socialism", even though the systems are completely different.

Why would I point to Venezuela or Sweden? They're not socialist. And it doesn't make sense to say "not real socialism" since even when their economy was doing well socialists didn't consider them to be socialist.