Thomas F. Schaller argues in his column that the wealth disparity between rich and poor is evidence that socialism is not taking hold in this country ("Socialism: the problem that just isn't there," Oct. 3). What he ignores is that highly planned and regulated economies are the very kind that allow cronyism and collusion between government and industry to flourish, enriching the few at the expense of the many.
History teaches us that socialism is never true to its stated objectives. It should come as a surprise to no one that the rich get richer when government gets into the business of bailing out large banks and auto companies. How can these practices be called anything other than socialism? Would Professor Schaller argue that wealth was equally distributed in the former Soviet Union?