>personalli I don't think so, but
>I guess the answer depends
>on one's definition of a
>"successful economy". If your idea
>of successful is a whole
>lot of money held by
>a very few which is
>gained at the expense of
>many, or if you can
>see people without homes living
>on the streets, or an
>educational system which is shot
>all to hell then sure
>why not.

Or you could have an economy in which the many share the few resources so in essence everyone has a little nothing... You could be in a country where public healthcare and education are far off dreams. People in this country complain about what others would/and are killing for.

What are the alternatives to the wicked American system of capitalism.

We could just pare back the economy and return to a subsistence economy, in which each and every person was responsible for their daily needs of shelter, food, and security.

Why plant when the forest has everything you need to eat?

Of course millions would die even if we gradually turned towards this "new" economy.

There would be no incentive, other than self preservation, to invent anything. If I'm not blind, and none of my kin are blind, why would I search for the cure for blindness.

Or you could argue for a more equitable sharing of the resources, but then how do you define what is equitable?

The fundamental question of economics is how do you divide a diverse set of resources for a diverse set of interests?

Should we even strive for equity, or a meritocracy...

peace

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/