>> The average income is now 10.2 dollars(it improved!) but the condition of
them, as a group, is worst.
>Care to explain further??

One person is better off while 9 others are worse off.

>If the nation-state is able to provide services through the taxation of the
population, then the entire group is better off, providing the services are
in fact provided. Your economic argument is not sound.

my simple argument is one for a nation-state.  Also, it isn't a FACT that
services will be provided(my country, UN says is "the best country to live
in", ain't close to my ideal). Helping the less fortunate seems like a
radical principle, but is a humane and moral one.

>Capitalist economies have been through the liberal, state regulated, and
social-welfare phases, all of which amounted to socialist strategies.  BTW,
Norway is not the only socialist-by-heavy-taxation economy around; most of
Europe qualifies and the US is not a far cry off.

Here is a simple question, where are these nations moving towards in terms
of their "socialist strategies"?  More spending or less?

>Public ignorance and the avoidance of public discussion about policy.
Apparently, both types of economies attempt to keep their population
preoccupied with scandals and crimes via an hegemonous media.

Doesn't the answer seem to move away from hegemonous media, which is own by
a few, and towards public owned media which will ultimately lead to public
discussion(and a better world to live in).

Milutin

--
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive and movin'
They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em