I know who Rifkin is, and if his thesis were original with him I'd be very skeptical. But he points to statistics I'm familiar with to make his case. I've been reading the UN Human Development Program reports for the last three years, and they make fascinating reading (if you happen to be fascinated by reams of statistical tables) for what they reveal about the outcome of all of the social and political experiments being tried out on the planet today. They're an objective report card. I've come to the conclusion I stated entirely without Rifkin's influence.

The report shows a consistent correlation: Nations that adopt a political and social balance more toward the communal (but far short of communistic) tend to experience more widespread prosperity and a higher standard of living for more people. That choice provides for the common good at the expense of producing fewer superstar billionaires than America.

The fascination with individual performance even at the expense of the common good is a peculiary American trait. It's why our Olympic gold medals tend to be in individual sports, and our teams like the benighted basketball team fall on their faces. (Well, except for women's beach volleyball...ummm...women's beach volleyball [slap].) It's why the Army has to recruit with that apalling slogan "An army of one" (what in the hell good are a million Rambos, really?)

In sports and in war, the lesson is that teamwork moves mountains and overcomes the worst obstacles. Are not those "socialist" countries in Europe constructing societies based on teamwork?