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

...Where it all goes from here “Squeers” is, I believe from the unfolding evidence, into depression economics. Maybe read some “John Steinbeck” for self help survival strategies into the future.

I'll have a go at decoding.

The idea of 'panem et circenses' revolves around giving the people what they want rather than what they need. To placate the at times unruly Roman mob, the senate and later the emperors chose to fatten and entertain the people, rather than enact policies that would bring about long-term prosperity or rectify problems. Besides providing bread and circuses, they would on occasion alleviate (or distract from) food shortages by expelling fringe dwellers: Jews, sorcerers, worshipers of Isis, to name a few. There was the potential for a short-term gain: get rid of the undesirables, and there's more grain to go around. The leadership had the appearance of doing something about the problem, whether it worked or not; they also distracted the people from the problem by turning their attention to the much more 'serious' issue of foreigners bringing down the greatness of Rome.

To bring the matter to the present, we see governments maintaining the appearance (not too well, it would seem) of doing 'stuff' by bowing to populist demands. The tax is going to hurt? That's fine, we'll compensate. We don't like our cattle being abused in Indonesia? That's fine, we'll halt the trade. Both are shallow measures that scratch at the surface of the problem but do not address its root causes.

Of course, a degree of arrogance is required of anybody who deigns to tell us what we 'need'. And that degree of arrogance is accentuated when somebody deigns to tell us that we want the 'wrong' things.

In a way, this links to Kim Sawyer's article, also posted today. Bowing to populism isn't a bad thing if the people are provided with sufficient relevant information - and less irrelevant 'noise' - to know what is best for us and to want it. Sadly, our bickering pollies and our sensationalist media tend to stand in the way of that.

Have to agree with Kenny. Individual citizens generally do quite a good job when it comes to taking care of their own ... because they own it. They value what they have secure title to, or power over. It's what they DON'T own that gets abused: the Tragedy of the Commons. Voters want low taxes, security, a minimum of burdensome regulation, as much freedom as they can get, and (finally) as many freebies as they can cajole out of politicians, in roughly that order. Government, however, wants voters who are dependent on their largesse, full stop. Law and order is always a winner for pollies because it's one of the few things citizens value highly but can't readily buy: they'll give up some freedoms for it, even pay tax for it. They don't mind a bit of regulation for business ... unless it regulates them out of a job, increases prices, inconveniences them, or they own a business. Today's problem is that taxes probably take a third of voter's income, on average, but the value attached to the services government provides is decreasing. Local libraries close, roads are congested, hospital waiting lists lengthen, graffiti artists tag whole neighbourhoods. These days, you only hear from local government when they’re reducing closing libraries, finding fault with the plans for your new deck, or raising rates, usually the lot. The Feds want to build more social housing (which might lower property values or increase crime), reduce CO2 emissions (which is cool if and only if you could afford $20,000 worth of solar panels earning rebates paid from increased power bills paid by pensioners), and send boat people to Malaysia at a price per head which is roughly equivalent to the mortgage it’ll take you another 20 years to pay off (not counting interest). Howard succeeded because he produced more bread than circuses. Gillard is ringmaster of a pretty ordinary circus, and Swan wants to tax bread. Yes, Cameron, the answer is radical simplification -- but of government, not ‘society’. Thoreau nailed it: ‘That government is best which governs least.’

Sorry donkeygod, you've got some of that wrong.

Quite often much of the population just wants to be left alone, to get on with their lives. They do, of course want toget into the trough when they perceive everyone else is in there, at their expense. Answer, dice the trough.

However they also get their knickers in a knot at what they perceive is unnecessary, expensive & stupid interference in their lives.

Take councils, [& dump them preferable], with all their officious rules & regulations, enacted, & enforced by not just "B" grade people, but C, & even D graders. We get planers who have managed the requirements of some course, at a B grade institution, run by some C grader, who could not hold a job in private enterprise. These people then start deciding where people can put doors in their houses.

Another prime example was the tourist promotion grants the Qld government gave to councils, a couple of years ago. All the councils hired tourist promotion officers, all with "public sector" experience, all graduates of the same university course, what else?

My wife hates it when my predictions come to pass. So when these "B" graders all put exactly the same adds in exactly the same media, at the same time of day, [word perfect, but for name of destination], just as their professor told them to do, she was annoyed with me.

Try starting a small business today, & you'll find the circus. It is at the council chambers, or George St, run by those who wouldn't survive in the big world.

Give them bread, I've never found anything they give away, except a hassle that is.

Peter Hume “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?”

Oh yes Peter, so very familiar….

Have you noticed how this threatened “Carbon Tax”, the objective of the immoral socialists and their watermelon partners in grime is being heavily promoted with the notion that

Half the tax will be given back to the tax payers as additional welfare or tax cuts

And

How some people, those at the bottom of the contributory order and top of the welfare benefits list (the rich fields of socialist votes) will actually be better off with a Carbon Tax than without

Imho that amounts to direct economic leveling and directly erodes the values derived from accepting personal responsibility and accountability…

With God on our side (and it is his Country after all), Gillard will lose the next election and her Circuses will be sent packing

I see Squeers agrees with the article….

As I have said before...

Squeers expressing the contrary simply means Peter Hume, SM and I must have it right

Col: <Imho that amounts to direct economic leveling ...>

I don't think you're capable of humility, so you may as well drop the h from imho.

I confess it's a dilemma. On the one hand I agree with the wealth redistribution agenda, only it doesn't go nearly far enough. I suggest a progressive and individualised carbon tax based on each person's carbon footprint. Once the footprint goes beyond a modest point the tax accrues exponentially. There could be tax credits for cyclists, walkers, vegetarians and various other forms of low consumption and concomitant emissions, while the degenerates from all classes are slugged heavily for their opulent and corpulent lifestyles..

It's true that wealth redistribution in the current paradigm only encourages those on welfare to seek to emulate (or parody) the decadent lifestyles of their unworthily wealthy "betters".
So ideally, for me, and as I allude above, let them make their own bread. As someone says above, bring back the commons; cut welfare and let those who want to regenerate work it for their subsistyence.

Until then though, "user pays", the catch cry of the neoliberals and conservative Christian hypocrites-- http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/04/20/european-christians-dont-want-government-to-reduce-income-inequality/ --tax the consumer's carbon emisions!
..you might have to get rid of a few trophies, Col...

Squeers

“I don't think you're capable of humility,”

Strangely Squeers, I don’t care a rats what you think

But I would say, “humility” is lacking in anyone who decides to stand in judgment over the supposed shortcomings of others

which I will simply put it down to your inherent leftard capacity for hypocrisy

“I confess it's a dilemma.”

I see no dilemma…

It is probably because you philosophy is based on airy-fairy notions of wannabe fairness

Mine are based on common sense which says

we each have different genes,
therefore we each have different abilities,
therefore we will each achive differently

Like dearest Margaret said (and she saw no dilemma either)

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so. “

Re “emulate (or parody) the decadent lifestyles of their unworthily wealthy "betters".

Who appointed you judge?

You are no one… a mere voice (- more a whisper or a wild beast breaking wind) in the wilderness…

I must admit it is only because I am a little bored that I am bothering to respond to you in the first place.

Its called “feeding the trolls”….

Best not to.. but now and again we throw them a scrap to gnaw on

I do not pretend to speak for “European Christians”, only for myself

I do not pretend I should sit in judgment over the humility of others

I do not pretend to have all the answers

However, I do know, my efforts should not be taxed simply to subsidise the profligacy of idiots, pursuing a failed and pointless philosophy of egalitarian sameness and the indolence of incorrigibles.

In short… you want it… you go work for it… and you buy it….

Don’t ask me for a sub because I owe you nothing

And I am the one who will decide which charities I will sponsor

Col:

<it is only because I am a little bored that I am bothering to respond to you in the first place.

Its called “feeding the trolls”…. >

you've used Squeers's name a few times of late, so I inferred you were desperate for some attention and threw you a bone.. Talk about ungrateful!

<But I would say, “humility” is lacking in anyone who decides to stand in judgment over the supposed shortcomings of others>

I was standing in judgement of our "society". Don't you stand in judgement og greens and socialists? Don't we all stand in judgement variously on OLO? And don't you regularly stand in judgement over those you despise?

<we each have different genes,
therefore we each have different abilities,
therefore we will each achive differently>

But it is surely more about luck and opportunity than genes or abilities?

True though that there are exceptions; my State School daughter recently triumphed over a cohort of older students from elite private schools in instrumental music. I didn't see any superiority of genes, and certainly not ability, just rich parents, expensive instruments, private tutors etc. etc. Very gratifying it was, but she'll need to continue to work twice as hard to make up for her demographic disadvantage--sorry, I mean genetic.

Thank you Peter for your comments. I never said in the article that our current situation and that of the Roman's was exactly the same. However in my view our circumstances are similiar enough from a historical trajectory perspective that I think the analogy of bread and circuses then as now is far from being invalid.

Squeers, I think it is highly unlikely that our society will change until events force us to do so. As a result I foresee a long and porbably quite nasty period of decline ahead of us following something like John Michael Greer's catabolic collapse theory (for those not familiar this is NOT an apocalyptic view of the future). If I was to recommend anything it would be that policy makers factored in declining marginal returns into policy decisions, eg. is investing billions of dollars into road tunnels that make a journey by car 20 minutes quicker really a good idea given the challenges we face.

Donkeygod, I agree that radical simplification of government is required and will happen in due course, as we head down the catabolic collapse path. However I disagree with your comment about society not needing to. As we progress along the energy depletion path at the global level this will force a simplification of society. In many ways this will be good for many people in the long run but potentially very painful in the short term.

Cameron Leckie

Squeers “But it is surely more about luck and opportunity than genes or abilities”

It is about attitude and behavior

Attitude might be inherited genetically or by parental role model influences etc.

But behavior is always the prerogative of the individual

And as individuals, we should all get a chance to make our own choices,

It is the despotism of collectivists, by any name, which seeks to limit the choices of the individual and subordinate them in the name of the collective.

That is the great lie of socialism,

Just as making the rich poor will not make the poor richer,

So too, reducing personal choice will never improve collective outcomes, indeed collective outcomes are more prone to failure because the length of the decision chain between the decider and the outcome.

Squeers, your comments have been directed at me and my motivations etc

So I suggest you never forget

I am fully entitled to observe the obvious shortcomings of reason, logic and morality in your posts, with as much direct analysis as I choose, regardless the level of discomfort you may experience.

(in short – don’t try to throw a figurative punch at me unless you are prepared to get one back… on the chin)

In short… you want it… you go work for it… and you buy it….

Don’t ask me for a sub because I owe you nothing

And I am the one who will decide which charities I will sponsor

Col,
The tragedy is that we have people in power who disagree with that & even more who support them. Is stupidity already an epidemic ? Do we still have time to to develop an antidote ?
Australia WAKE UP !

Yep, bread and circuses...also rampant parasitical behaviour rewarded with praise and wealth and all middle class and corporate welfare.
"Socialism" vs "Capitalism" arguments are like which is best: Frozen or burned? Both are unspeakable without balance and both extremes are harmful.
Will the extreme capitalist acknowledge the massive public bailouts and the need for infrastructure and rules?
Will the extreme socialist acknowledge the limitations of bureaucracy and top-down control?
Doubtful as most folks are having so much fun labelling and abusing the other side.
A lot of our problems are demographic....we need turnover at the top so the world can utilise the technology developed recently, and move away from a "empty world, cheap energy, steal from savages" mindset.
For those who *still* think the last decade was good economics....just how long can you live on credit card debt, and what happens when you stop racking it up and have to pay back? In macro economics it's called "boom - Bust - Recession". The "blame" should go to the spenders...but it won't. The media will blame the government for over-spending while the real over-spenders continue to reap profits!
So long as finance runs the economy we will have very wealthy accountants and our real wealth will steadily decline. Boom - Bust will continue so long as the price of money is manipulated for political reasons. (Why are interest rates set by committee?) Don't these folks *believe* in the free market? (Hint: The RBA is like a bit legal insider trading service...able to profit from any market!)

Ozandy
"Will the extreme capitalist acknowledge the massive public bailouts ..."

I don't know why you're identifying massive public bailouts with capitalism. Do you identify government ownership of companies with capitalism too? Government taking money from the population, and giving it to political favourites is not "capitalism", which refers to the private ownership and control of the means of production. If you are going to use the term capitalism to refer to *government* interventions based on a *socialist* idea that government
a) can, and
b) should
manage the economy, then what term are you using to refer to socialism, and what term are you using to refer to actual capitalism, you know, the one based on private property, not political decision-making?

"and the need for infrastructure and rules?"

What is the difference between infrastructure and other capital goods?

Just because there is a need for infrastucture does not mean that government should provide it, nor even that it does so passably well: https://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

Similarly with rules. Governments themselves are in a state of anarchy. Who are they to talk?

Ultimately, there are only two possibliities. You will decide what to do with your labour and your property, or someone else will force you to do what you don't want. To talk of "balance" between these is j like saying there should be a "balance" between making love and rape, judiciously using a bit of each as social need requires. It's nonsense, like calling government's socialist interventions 'capitalism'.

"Bust will continue so long as the price of money is manipulated for political reasons. (Why are interest rates set by committee?) Don't these folks *believe* in the free market? (Hint: The RBA is like a bit legal insider trading service...able to profit from any market!)"

Totally agree with you on that one.

Peter, I believe we are closer to agreement than most with regards to the limitations of government, however I don't share your faith in the ability of private enterprise to provide services that fall under the "natural monopoly" category.
I like your analogy...but unlike sex I believe a little collective decisions making can occur in economics! Sometimes what's best for us isn't what we want...(Should tobacco be marketed at kids?)
As well as being able to raise funds cheaper than smaller entities, government projects (in theory) have more transparency and can more effectively do "one off" large projects. As more and more privatisation and out-sourcing experiences show, private enterprise requires competition, which requires duplication of all business functions plus the addition of marketing which is a major cost center. Private entities also require secrecy and tend to stretch accounting rules as far as they go. There is also the element of the cost of profits...which public projects can minimise but private companies do not.
The major problem in government is that like really big businesses, there is way too much management...about 8 coxswains to every rower! There is a plague of "senior" staff who cannot work hands-on, refuse to lead or manage yet still have "roles". There is also the consultant factor where senior staff do not know how to perform a function, so they hire in folks who profit from bum-hours on seats...these folks are very, very good at making projects go forever.
I subscribe to "Money Morning", who's author believes there is *no place* for taxation and government of any form...this is fine in theory but in practice I've seen too many countries, big and small where only some sort of collective community action will get necessary jobs done. Only when there is fat obtained from collective action can the profit motivated entities start working. Our plague of welfare and useless adult daycare roles is more of the issue than the system itself.
Personally I'd like to try city-states run by democratic corporations...this one dimensional "commie-fascist" dimension is a little too restrictive for the real world.

excellent article & almost all of the comments.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12424#214867

Squeers, really, communism is more dead than capitalism ever was & the problems with all capitalist nations are the closet communists in them together with the white ant jobs they have been doing while desperately trying to destroy their own lifeline.

The RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance is a walking corpse, a b grade movie zombie that is so brain dead, it does not even know it is dead yet.

the simplification idea is on the money, we need to simplify our system of government, society/culture, return to the family unit.

Those conservatives of a libertarian bent, so down on collectives.

Can i ask you this question, is a family not a collective? especially if you are talking about extended family groups or clans? Yet these provide the most effective, efficient small businesses?

Peter Hume, if i am remembering my Austrian eCONomics correctly they advocate tax/welfare/societal structures that promote the family first, above all else, as this provides the foundations for farms, small businesses to start, stabilise &/or grow into medium businesses.

Between 1945 & 1965 did we not have an economy which had more small & medium business? less big business? Did not our leaders at the time speak derisively about big business, un fettered capitalism?

Perhaps repealing almost all laws federal, state & local passed since then might return us to those days of prosperity?