Col,

I don't think the aftermath of Thatcherism can be hailed as a brilliant success.

When she left, Britain was a very divided society and had the highest poverty levels in Europe. Things aren't a lot better now and all their Public Assets are gone as well.

There is far-left communist capitalism and far-right neo-con capitalism (e.g. Hu Jintao’s China and George W Bush’s America respectively). Both depend on rampant consumerism to sustain their economic growth. I suspect people like Rudd and Obama have identified the best way forward is to adopt a middle of the road approach. They will never actually claim it to be socialism, but you will hear phrases like social conservatism. There is some truth in Col’s mantra, ‘socialism by stealth’. Leaders around the world are recognising that globalising the world economies are having unintended consequences – much like the flapping of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil can affect the soya bean share price on the FTSE.

Diocletian
Those with the capital resources will survive these unintended consequences reasonably well – I don’t think Lomberg disagrees. However, our natural resources are under intense pressure as the world’s population is projected to increase from 6.5 billion to 9 billion by 2050 under the current economic paradigm. While we can sustain this increase in the short term, we can’t sustain it in the long term. I would say biodiversity and the ecological footprint is being compromised by over capitalising our natural resources – have you ever wondered why sea-food is getting too expensive for lower income earners, or why certain species can’t be found in the shops anymore, or why some fishermen can’t compete anymore or have to travel farther to find their fish stocks?