Socialism is too risky to be ever be implemented
There are several major issues with socialist thinking that show gaps in regards to risk analysis:
- There is no way of 'test driving' socialism at the scale of a country. We will only know if it works after a full implementation.
- Should a policy be implemented, either all at once or gradually over time, the likelihood of failure is non-zero. We can look at the historical track record of socialism, the ineptitude of politicians, the randomness of economics, etc. I'll generously put this likelihood with full government buy-in at 1% (although in my opinion it's much higher).
- Should socialism fail post implementation, the results will be disastrous.
- Lindy Effect - A free successful country is more likely to remain free than otherwise. It's likely that USA and the West continue as successful countries under capitalism for the foreseeable future.
To summarize: You want to implement a system that has a historically bad track record, that we can't test or validate prior to implementing, that will likely affect 100's of millions of people in the event of failure, where virtually all forecasts on the US and the West are strongly positive under capitalism.
There is no risk analyst in the world who would take that, it's a horrific, terrible deal. Anyone who suggested something this risky in a corporate setting would likely be immediately fired, no matter how great the potential (imaginary) gains are.
Extra: Because I know someone will post it - this is not Pascal's Wager, although socialists do not understand risk in general so this is to be expected. Pascal's wager dealt specifically with unknown,imaginary outcomes (God - Heaven/Hell, no god).
Risk analysis deals with known outcomes, or likely outcomes, which we can easily model in the real world.