Many will say that what happened in the 1970s was good and that, had we continued down that path, Jamaica would be further along today. But the problem is that we couldn't continue down that path. A country heavily dependent on tourism and private-sector industries cannot simply adopt a system where "the people" or the state increasingly take control of the economy without consequences. Businesses and investment will leave, industries will contract, and the economy will suffer. If you want universal healthcare, education, transportation and social welfare for everyone, somebody has to pay for it. Countries that successfully provide extensive universal benefits generally have a strong tax base, highly productive economies, significant natural-resource revenues, or some combination of these things. Jamaica does not have an abundance of natural resources capable of carrying that burden. Yes, there were good things that came out of the 1970s. JAMAL was important. Jamaica had only gained independence a little over a decade earlier, literacy remained a serious challenge, and many Jamaicans did not have fair opportunities to succeed. Expanding access to education and opportunity was necessary. And yes, I remember the bulgur and curried chicken fondly too. But we cannot look only at the programmes we liked while ignoring the wider economic consequences of that period. And people need to understand that democratic socialism and social democracy are not the same thing. Traditional democratic socialism seeks to move beyond capitalism toward greater social or democratic ownership of the economy. Social democracy, on the other hand, accepts a capitalist, private-enterprise economy while using taxation and government programmes to provide a strong social safety net and public services. So please stop pointing to Norway as though it proves that democratic socialism would work in Jamaica. Norway is a capitalist social democracy with extensive private ownership, high taxation, a highly productive economy and enormous petroleum wealth that has helped finance the country's public wealth and welfare system. That is very different from Jamaica. For the first time in my life, I am seeing so many young Black Jamaican entrepreneurs building businesses and creating opportunities for themselves. Are we seriously suggesting that the answer is to return to an economic philosophy that calls for greater collective or state control of industry? Who is going to risk their money building a business if they believe the government will eventually control it? And there is another irony: some of the same people who say they do not trust politicians or government now want government to have more control over the economy. How exactly is that supposed to work? We should absolutely preserve and expand the good things like education, healthcare, opportunity, social mobility and support for Jamaicans who need it. But we do not need to recreate the economic experiment of the 1970s to accomplish those goals. I DON'T WISH TO GO BACK TO THAT EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD. Jamaica needs a strong private sector that generates jobs, investment and tax revenue, alongside a government capable of using those revenues responsibly to provide quality education, healthcare, infrastructure and a meaningful social safety net. Otherwise, the "proven thing" will be dead in the wata. Jamaica simply does not have an abundance of natural resources to finance everything people are promising while simultaneously weakening the businesses and industries that actually generate economic activity. Dat a buss economy and suffaration.