Allen:

I can't really disagree with you with one exception. So often we tend to believe here that capitalism is far superior to socialism. The reality, however, is that no country truly runs on exclusively one or the other since all today are essentially mixed economies.

However, there still is the concept that many have that the more capitalistic systems are superior to the more socialistic systems. This is not necessarily true as the research has indicated.

Late last year (I forget which month's issue), Scientific American had a rather lengthy article comparing the Scandinavian models (somewhat more socialistic) to the English countries model (somewhat more capitalistic), and the end result was that the Scandinavian model slightly outperformed the English model. They researchers then explained why this was the case, which I mentioned in my previous post.

I'll stop at this point so you, or anyone else who's interested, can have a chance to reply.

Shalom,
Vern

Then we aren't in disagreement, Vern. I didn't state a preference in my earlier post, but rather said that, to my mind, the key is finding a balance.

As it happens, I live in a country that is significantly more socialistic in its outlook and in its government behaviours (not to mention the expectations of its citizens) that is the case in the U.S. And also, as it happens, I tend to favour taxation that ensures the "right level" of social safety net.

And that's where the question always is. What is the "right level?" I suspect countries and governments will continue to experiment with that for many centuries to come, possibly as long as there are countries and governments, and there will be many pendulum swings back and forth throughout mankind's journey towards the future.

As I said, I think the real key is to "get it right." Ensure that there's incentive for people to make an effort, to take risks, to get involved and to consequently raise their own standard of living. And at the same time ensure that there is sufficient social safety provision to ensure that -- for whatever reason -- those who cannot or will not be incented can still enjoy a reasonable quality of life, without judging them harshly, because that's always a drain on the overall satisfaction level of society's members.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

evangelicalhumanist:

I have spent much time in Canada since it's only a 20 minute drive for me to get there and, yes, I do agree with your comparison. I've mentioned to many people over the years that my political/economic mindset is more compatable with the average Canadian than the average American. However, I'm even more compatable with the average Swede.

BTW, my maternal grandfather, whom I was very close to, was from Quebec (OK, stop rolling your eyes!), and there's sort of an interesting story that goes with that (at least interesting to me). He was a Me'tis (part French & part Indian) but denied the Indian (Canadian Cree) part until much later in life, and he even had lied to me about not being Indian. We were very close, so when he finally admitted it (pictures of my great-grandfather gave it away), I asked him why he denied it, and he said that if you grew up where I did, you'd understand. On top of this, I ran into the exact same thing on my father's side of the family with the fact that part of our ancestory was Pawnee (not well liked by both white and most Indian groups), although this happened here in America.

So much for the "good old days".

Shalom ( but I'll never cheer for ANY Canadian hockey team when they play the Red Wings!),
Vern