The definitions of key terms are to blame. (my understanding) When the article refer to "socialism", they are referring to the strong centrally mandated type, not the small community Israeli Kibbutz. Cuba might be one country that doesn't fit either definition, but they are short of the money necessary for condensation.
In a controlled economy (Harry & Keith have already helped explain that capitalism is ALSO a controlled economy), wealth can condense more easily than in a TRUE free trade economy which enables more competition, not monopoly. The article's mistake is assuming that these actually exist:
Liberal economies that maintain free and unrestricted trade are less susceptible.
The journalist &/or the physicists are confused/unclear. From my readings there have been scarce few open economies like that beyond tribal or regional ones. (Inuit, native Amer., Aboriginal, Kibbutz, ..)
Champions of unrestricted free-market trade, meanwhile, might bear
in mind that this is the very condition that generates an unequal Pareto
distribution in the first place. It places most of the wealth in the hands
of a lucky few.
There will probably always be gaps in well-being and power. The losers use the concept of "lucky"; the winners use the facts of smarts & cleverness, and hard work. I'd lay 2:1 that the journalist writing this leans to the left! :-) The study surely is better written, and when I get time, I'll have a look at it. My guess is that central control is key, even if by consent of the governed.
Hope this helps.
Steve
-----------------------------
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?
-- 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
