2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable. So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet. But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less? The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce. What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs. In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world. These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization. The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe. It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event. Capiche?