I am far from a socialist. However I do believe that governments have a mandate from people to provide the basic infrastructure in which to live. The degree to which we identify the "basics" often determines the tax levels and cost of living in that country. I am more on the side of providing health care on the same level of importance as bridges and schools. I just hope that the difference in being "globally competitive" does not require us to also to rush to the bottom in scaling down those "basics" to such a level than we end up with a Australia with an infrastructure that lacks compassion.

I agree that Vietnam has improved their lot substantially and it is exactly because they did let free markets take shape and inform decision making. Australia has gone a long way in this regard as well. Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagon would be proud.

Now - Is there a case to be had here that acknowledges that free market mechanisms do not take into account social and environmental costs. I do believe this is so. Pure economic free markets may look great on paper and for corporate balance sheets, but governments do have a responsibility to be a chamber of sober second thought.