In the sociological dimension of economics (how societies compete and gain ascendancy) one argument is that the policies of social inclusion in the United States led to broader inclusion of those with hardship, hence promoted the meme recently mentioned on this list (genius or inspiration born in challenge or overcoming defect) and consequently led to U.S. supremacy in the sciences, arts, et al. This was possibly the greatest evolutionary step in the last millenia and was substantially occasioned by the unique opportunity of mass European migration (of those looking to "do better") to the one remaining huge and primitively populated landmass (North America). If it is true that the populations and policies propagated to North America several centuries ago led to the most substantial recent evolutionary advance, then there are two key questions going forward: 1) there being no similar continents to migrate to and create another step in social inclusion that permits a central reinvigoration for those strongest plants (people) growing in the harshest environs to assume roles of thought leadership, where will be the future geographic path of progress? 2) there being less and less evolution based on national competition (as corporations transform the evolutionary landscape into new global dimensions) where will be the future competitive paths of progress if it is to be less and less between national policies?
Reed -- (By the way, if you haven't read my essay on cleverly turning corporate powers towards more progressive objectives, Aikido-style, you may like having a look at the essay, "Aikido Activism", at http://tinyurl.com/2ujrf -- or contact me off list for a MSWord copy, complete with new graphical data)
