You folks are focused on 'sytem'...when you should be looking at 'people'.

Some have mentioned ego and the such like...but it all misses the boat.

Marxism as belly said hasn't, isn't and won't 'work'. It will just produce the gray mindless social zombies of Orwellian note.

No 'system' will ever deliver justice or fairness, because systems are implemented by 'people'.

Haven't we heard enough, and seen enough to know that the 'nice' face of politicians masks that cold power hungry, 'vested interest' inside?

Human society is a dynamic thing. In a constant state of flux and change.
Again..because of 'people'. Only changing the heart will bring about true justice, but even this is limited to the daily walk of individuals.

I know..I know.. 'sounds so pessemistic' but it isn't..it's realistic. The only hope I can offer is the one I experience each Sunday in fellowship and worship, and throughout the rest of the time in my own daily walk of both up and down.

The framework is wonderful though, being a child of God (in the born again sense) is quite a life changing experience

Hi Stern/Col,

Personally I thought that hasbeen ("Gilbert, spoken like a true "public servant. I suppose all bureaucrats must believe something approaching your idea of good central authorities, or they could not live with themselves.") must have misread my comment, the relevant section of which read, "I do not advocate a heavily centralized system."

Who knows however, maybe he/she just got the public servant feel from me.

As for you, you do oversimplify, as did Adam Smith and David Ricardo from your perspective and Karl Marx and friends from the collectivist perspective before you. The world is not so simple that we are either solely competitive or solely cooperative, so why should our economic and political systems be based on one or the other.

Humanity is organic, social and adaptive, therefore evolves over time with developments that impact upon the society, whether they be technological, social or otherwise. Consequently, there is no perfect system, just systems that work for societies for periods of time depending upon their positioning on the planet and in history, with their own cultural biases.

Added to that is personal weaknesses; greed, power, etc. It is these things that cause systems to fail...human weakness. So the system that understands this and facilitates a level of control over it, is a system that COULD work. Capitalism , communism and every other "ism" fails to recognize human failings, and has the underlying premise of honesty, good intent and altruism in all at all times. I don't believe that any one of us could say that this has been our experience within our interactions with humanity.

Therefore all systems are bound to suffer grandiose flaws.

The systems that have enabled societies and nations in the past to thrive against external forces, are I suppose the ones we regard has having been successful. However today, those boundaries have changed. We are now an international marketplace AND workforce. We are entering into a new concept again of social systems that must embrace this reality, and the difficulties arising from it, for which no precedence has been set.

This now draws into consideration such things as multiculturalism, costs of labour across national boundaries, and then costs of goods and services, international money-flow...The New World Order. A single global cultural entity, or a co-operation of multi-cultural tolerance and equality? These are complex national issues for all nations, and all struggling for dominance at the bargaining table of the World Stage.

We will evolve systems of necessity and political relevance as the times afford each of our regions while the personalities that drive change through leadership (good or bad) come and go. But being what we are, we will do what has to be done, well after the need for it to be done is gone. So it's usually ugly. That's what I've gleaned from some history.

TBC..

Ours is a unique situation in Oz, we are English-speaking, our strongest alliances are with the US and the UK, yet our closest neighbors is Asia and that trading bloc. Our largest buyer is China, but our largest political ally is the US. And we're one of the richest and most desirable places on the planet. That puts us between a rock and hard place if any hostilities occur between the US and China. The system for THIS country, is to tread carefully along this precipitous road. Our system must develop strength to be independent of them, while brokering tolerance between them. We're serving two very different masters.

So for our own country, as far as "systems" are concerned in the global context of our relationships and the Global Village, I'm sure you can see that previous models, in relative terms, are moot.

Permit me a modicum of doubt on this assertion of yours, Stern.

>>Pericles... train fare ... about the same price as 1983 but who knows how much UK government subsidy<<

My last monthly season from Tonbridge to Cannon Street in 1981 was £32. It is now £292. What is the equivalent calculation for your commute?

>>My commuting costs fell to 30% of what they were previous (a drop of 70%) when Margaret Thatcher broke the UK rail monopoly on commuter travel into London.<<

You make such a virtue out of specifics, when others...

>>...draw such a generalist and arbitrary conclusions<<

...that I think you should respond accurately, and precisely. After all, you can clearly recall the 70% drop, so it shouldn't be difficult to tell us what it went from, and to. We can then use the National Rail web site to confirm that it is still "about the same price".

How about it?

Hai.. It is good..