One of the most egregious instances of bread and circuses was Bob Hawke 's comment, when Alan Bond 's syndicate won the America 's Cup that " any boss who sacks his employee for not coming to work tomorrow is a bum ".

I am happy to see Cadel Evans win the Tour de France but it was ridiculous when some persons called for a public holiday to celebrate the win . Julia Gillard correctly rejected that proposal . In any case , a decision to declare a public holiday would have to be made State by State , not Federally . So far as I know , no State Premier so far has been silly enough to do so .

it's customary to feed the cow as you milk it.

The author misses a critical distinction which makes the whole of his argument invalid.

The bread and circuses to which Juvenal refers in ancient Rome were provided by *the state*. They are not a “societal” phenomenon. It is not voluntary society, the basis of all morality, the basis of all capital, and therefore of all civilization, who were indulging these forced redistributions. Rather, a state built on slavery and taxation merely took the fruits of the labour of the productive class, and gave them away to whoever would maintain the state functionaries in their position of privilege. Sound familiar?

To compare the diversion of the ancient Roman circuses (provided by the state and based on compulsion), with the diversion of modern football (provided by private persons and based on voluntary exchange), is entirely invalid ethically, economically, and as a matter of political science.

It is true that all people prefer the satisfaction of a given want sooner rather than later, and that this gives rise to the tension between instant grat, which is its own reward, but impoverishing and delayed grat, which is the foundation of all capital and enriching, as well as the necessary foundation of all the wealth that the redistributionists want to get their hands on.

But it is completely invalid to assert, as the author does, that this tendency would be under better rein if state control were substituted for private. At least the private owner has the time horizon of his own life, perhaps that of his children, and the interest in preserving the capital value of assets for the sustainable production of income.

None of this applies to the state, which in modern democracies does not have an ownership interest in the national patrimony, has a time horizon to the next election, and an active interest in preferring infantile instant grat to capital accumulation, hence the state’s addiction to inflationary finance which promotes the culture of debt by favouring debtors at the expense of savers.

(cont.)

“Such dependency is no doubt but a byproduct of the dominant globalised economic model that puts profit before people “

Excuse me? Dependence on government handouts with all its unjust, depressing and anti-social consequences is entirely a result of a national socialist economic model that is actively hostile to the institution of profit at every turn.

Any major social engineering has to be sold to the people, especially if it involves sacrifice. The carbon tax is a prime example of where the government has so little credibility, that no one believes them.

At this stage, Juliar could not sell ice cream in the desert.

I agree with much of this article, though I'm unsure what the author is recommending.
It's true, for me, that we are a degenerate society dependent on bread and circuses, but it's wrong to focus only on those individuals who have made a career of welfare--leading impoverished lives based (figuratively) on nutritionless consumption. The spoiled rich are much more decadent and do no more to earn their place at the top of the food chain. The real working classes earn a pittance and have little money, or time, or imagination leftover to lead a fulfilling life.
So I see our society as almost totally degenerate, incapable of self-reliance.
The answer is that we should make our own bread and circuses, but there's precious little scope, need or inclination, as the case (class) may be, to do that.
I don't see the solution in the current system at all, only in overthrowing it!
The middle east will never achieve what we laughingly call democracy, because Western-style welfare is unaffordable for them. Our own democracies are also threatened by the fact that unending economic growth is impossible, and thus our brief flirtation with welfare Stateism is also doomed. A survival of the fittest world of pure capitalism is a pipe-dream of idealists, and a nightmarish dystopia for the rest of us.
Interesting times