That is to say the passing of the communist alternative does not indicate that humankind is on a terminal path towards the Anglo-American version of capitalism.  

Foremost among these works is Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage that kicked off the study of why Europe isn't converging on the Anglo-American model.  They argue important advantages fro the German model of industrial relations in allowing for diversified quality production (DQP) (I could have messed this acronym up) where human capital is developed in the private sector through workplace training and union apprenticeship rather than being forced into the public sector or onto the shoulders of individuals. This of course being but one of the many ways in which the fairytale of "economic freedom" promoted by the Right fails to meet muster upon even the most cursory examination.

In the same vein (VOC) Inequality and Prosperity: Social Europe Vs. Liberal America lays out the real world effects of the differing types of capitalism present in the United States and Europe.   Dozens of scatterplots, with interpretation.  Interesting though throught the quantitative cloud produced.

I suppose the question should be, "Why is it that the European capitalist model is seen to be in eclipse?"


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

I have that text on unbundling of the energy networks that they oppose for fairly pragmatic reasons.

I can also dig up the article where they point out that Democrats in power are a lot better tax-wise because, being favorable to public spending, they have to justify that it works, and tend to (i) make government work better, and (ii) make it work at a decent cost because they know it has to be funded.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

It's not that they need to listen to their own facts... It's about the narrative, isn't it?

Heh. I feel like an acolyte.

Oh well. Now all the more fitting:

A pleasure, also

Economic freedom is about the freedom of individuals to decide how they will develop and use their productive abilities, exchange goods and services with others, compete in markets, and keep the fruits of their labor. Political restrictions that inhibit voluntary actions and personal choice in these areas conflict with economic freedom, even when they are adopted democratically. A country can be democratic and still severely restrict the economic freedom of its citizens.

Second, the basis for economically free action is fundamentally different than that for political democracy. Agreement and mutual gain provide the basis for economically free activities. Unless both parties to an exchange agree, the transaction will not occur. On the other hand, democratic political action is based on "majority rule." The majority, either directly or through their representatives, decides and the minority must submit.

The political process tends to be shortsighted.

Unlike ... no, come on, this is too easy!

[...] the democratic political process is characterized by politicians who "trade" programs that benefit special-interest groups at the expense of the general populace in exchange for political contributions that will help them win the next election. In contrast with market actions based on mutual agreement, there is no assurance that political action will be productive, that it will expand output and enhance the income levels of the citizenry.

In other words: true economic freedom is incompatible with worrying about what effect your actions may have on third parties.

Differentiation between socialist and capitalist opressors is becoming academic. The minimal threashold for market economics in Burma was never reached, but junta's freedom could be an envy of many libertarians.

And then there is the hobby of 'saving the world', of course.  Much energy (and money)is spent on that... (Norwegians know best...or think they do...)