Steve, I read the article and all the way through I thought that it was saying that socialism was the most likely to accrue the wealth in the hands of one individual i.e. corruption, when the last sentence said the opposite. Could you explain this a little less technically to me? Also when do models fail? When they fly in the face of common sense? Why do some societies like the Scandinavians seem to resist corruption so well while the old Spanish colonies seem to prone to Cronyism. Wasn't Texas and old Spanish colony? But I would appreciate the economics professionals on the list making this a little more clear to me. I'm familiar with Pareto-optimality which is what I have been saying about winners must have losers. But the science article didn't make sense to me. Help?
Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FUTUREWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ECOL-ECON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 4:11 PM Subject: WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION (article in Science) > Interesting article..... I've not studied this topic in any detail, but > in a complex system, it seems speculative - except for the obvious fact > that if no excess wealth then no saved wealth. > > Steve > > > > WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION > > Physicists are explaining how politics can create the super-rich. > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/020121/020121-14.html > > > -- > http://magma.ca/~gpco/ > http://www.scientists4pr.org/ > Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a > finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding > >
