Factually wrong about what? I'm not sure what you mean by "balance" but capitalist nations by far had more power after WW2. The US was in particular in a special position because unlike many other world powers its economy and infrastructure was not damaged by the war.
Any perceived "balance" between the west and communists was due to the strategic development of nuclear weapons and missile technology by the USSR and China. This prevent the west from pursuing military action against communist states....a fact that hasn't been lost on nations like North Korea and Iran.
There are no "laws of the economy" (just economic models none of which are very good at predicting economic events) and the narrative is very clearly rooted in free-market theory which is the basis of capitalist nations. So I stand by what I said, its a capitalist narrative of why communism doesn't work.
Communism and capitalism represent different economic theories, as such to judge one within the system of the other is a disingenuous way to analyze them. Ultimately you have to compare the theories philosophically, economic theory as taught in western universities hinges on a variety of philosophic assumptions. There are a variety of questions to address here, for example: http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~deli ... nomics.htm
Communism vs Capitalism can be seen as the result different answers to some the key foundational issues.
You keep making these sorts of vague accusations why demonstrating nothing. Could you please clarify what you think I'm dismissing or wrong about and then state why you believe that to be the case? Otherwise its just meaningless mud-slinging.
This seems to be a rather western centric interpretation. China greatly restricts western corporations within China and China has become a manufacturing power-house not because western corporations but because their own innovations. But China did create a sort of hybrid economic model, that is, they created special economic zones were businesses were able to operate more independently but even within these economic zones important aspects of business like financing are still very much controlled by the state. But the economic zones were planned and the overall economy is still very much a planned economy.
In this sense you could interpret China as a nation that has developed a realistic interpretation of communism in a global order dominated by capitalist powers. That is to say, unlike the USSR China realized that it could exploit western powers to bootstrap its economy.
You're focusing on dramatics rather than addressing the key questions. As I said before, your underlying reasoning here makes little sense. The idea that some form of government is inherently flawed because some particular regime pursued a misguided policy makes little sense.
Also, as I noted previously, if you're going to judge actions by outcomes like this you'd want to do it relative to population size. If you look at raw numbers the nations with the largest populations will always look like they have the worst government policies.
How the war started is irrelevant to the economic details being discussed. But I think your comments about the origins of the war are entirely glib, as if North Korea just invaded the South one day. The Korea war is was related to the cold war and various power struggles in the region, Korea was arbitrary divided and the war was the result of that division. Blaming North Korea for the war makes little sense, there were numerous factors to the war and you cannot single out one as the ultimate "cause" of the war.
You're ignoring the key issue, the sanctions just don't impact trade between North Korea and the US but instead seek to bully any large corporation in the world from doing business with North Korea. You're speaking as if the relationship is symmetrical but that is obviously not the case, the sanctions dramatically limit North Korea's ability to develop by limiting its access to key natural resources, technology, etc while having almost no impact on current powers.
Once again you accuse me of lying yet provide zero evidence that I'm wrong. But I just realized the issue here. Much of your commentary here has been rather vague so I wasn't sure what you had in mind with the 3%. Of course I made that known but you apparently thought it was better to call me names rather than clarify what you had in mind. In any case, I was rather clear about what figure I was citing and its the share of the federal budget (spending minus social security) that goes to the military. That is approximately 55%. What you seem to be citing is the fraction of US GDP that comes from active military spending which is around 3.4%. But that isn't even the right figure, you'd also have to include non-defense military spending as well which is another 3% (this includes veteran benefits, etc). So the total is around 6.7% of GDP and around 55% of the federal budget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... c_2016.png
I agree that its hard to measure happiness but how does that make it a nonsensical issue? I think the vast majority would agree that ultimately what matters is human happiness not the size of our houses, the amount of crap we put in them, etc.
But modern capitalist make little effort to try to measure and achieve human happiness, its all about crude economic measures that at best have a loose relationship to the well-being of people.
Honestly....what exactly does this mean? You value data? Data is just a collection of figures, its how you interpret the data that matters and how you interpret that data hinges entirely on your theorizing and assumptions.