My concern with this line of argument is that it bundles consequences from a system of government up with the consequences of trade embargoes and other hostile actions from capitalist economies. That doesn’t make the actions of the dictators in those countries justifiable in any way, but might have precipitated conditions that made them more likely.

How would communist nations have fared if the US had taken a ‘live and let live’ approach to them? The approach during the cold war was that they couldn’t be allowed to succeed. That led to the sort of standards of living where dictatorship tends to thrive. Note this isn’t unique to communist countries. Look at the Republican party in the US, now that Neoliberalism is failing.

Does nobody else find the framing of this article a little weird? I thought the argument for boosting the economy, was because it correlated well with people’s well being. (Not that I personally but that, but I understand the line of thought). Now instead we’re suggesting that human outcomes are important because it boosts an arbitrary measure? I feel like the cart is now dragging the horse along the ground.