Runner I'm not singling out Christians per se for attack. As I said I'm a Christian myself. What I did say is that a callous or hypocritical approach to welfare is bad for the vulnerable. And that 'Christians' who attack the vulnerable are acting like hypocrites. The truth is that our welfare state is extremely modest compared with the Nordics. Our levels of social expenditure are about HALF as much as theirs.

There are several principles involved - including;

a) Social Insurance - ie: we all pay a little tax to 'insure' against retrenchment, illness, injury, old age, poverty. The same as private forms of insurance - but with better value for money....

b) Social Wage - some of our 'wages' are paid collectively and socially: a form of redistribution which recognises that low wage workers can be exploited ; and even those on higher wages can get a better deal when 'collectively consuming' education, health, infrastructure, services, child care, public and social housing. Medicare is an example!

c) Welfare State - can be interpreted as including the same as above ; But can also include support for truly vulnerable citizens - eg: the disabled.

What you said about indigenous Australians - is not so much the fault of the welfare state ; it's about alienation and a clash of cultures. Withdrawing welfare from indigenous peoples is not any 'answer'. What might help is a dignified Treaty ; self-government (with anti-corruption safeguards); loans and subsidies for indigenous co-operative enterprises. To achieve dignity, self-determination.

IN Sweden their system - including their welfare state - helped secure a regime of full employment, social security and high wages throughout the 1950s and 1960s. They still have one of the strongest welfare states ; and their people are attached to the security and value-for-money they enjoy ; they aren't in any rush to abandon their particular social compromise.

Welfare States were also started by Conservatives ; are not restricted only to socialist governments ; See my prior comments on Bismarck for instance.

For God's sake, Tristan, get on Youtube, click on "Sweden" and "Muslims", and have a look into the future of Australia.

Sweden was once touted by Socialists as the perfect welfare state society, and a model for the future. It has become a model all right. A model for what a nation full of prosperous and self absorbed humanitarians will become because it's cossetted population was so far removed from the hard realities of life, that they would lemming like commit social self suicide, rather than get their hands dirty fighting for their own survival. Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world, and these rapes are not being done by the local Mormons.

Every single western country is now mired in incredible dept, and you say we must spend more on welfare? According to the "dept clock" websites I have seen, "the Nordics" are broke and getting broker. Sweden AUS$ 214 billion in dept. Norway 54 billion AUS$ in dept. Denmark 123AUS$. The list goes on. The USA 21 trillion. Britain 3 trillion. France 2 trillion. The western welfare state which socialists like yourself dreamed about became a reality. But it is now doomed. One reason was because people like your good self got stupid and encouraged every third worlder in the world to swarm into your country and help themselves to a social welfare system that they never paid for. 50% of Muslims in Europe and Australia are on the dole. The Muslim suburb of Auburn in Sydney has the highest number of long term welfare recipients in the whole of Australia.

"Elephant?" says Tristan. "What elephant?" "Tax the rich."

Like the Swedes, Tristan, you may not possess the capacity to look reality in the face until it turns around and bites you on the bum. But fortunately, other people can. There is a growing realisation among the population that unless we do something about our economy, and do something about our immigration policies, we will go bankrupt and our once enviable society will go down the toilet.

Turnbull only offered lessaize fair.

I read with concern the following -

"Posted by Bazz, Monday, 11 July 2016 4:47:18 PM
"I suspect a "wink & a nod, say no more", between Labour & Liberal that we are in for a big financial crash not too far away so we might as well go out with a bang and S & P's opinions of Australia will not matter anyway as no one will be paying off debt or interest."

This is not the first time this matter of debt and interest has been discussed and it is logical and sensible to have a sober attitude towards it. It's spoken and written about almost daily.

But could someone please help me out a bit here?

Pardon my economic ignorance, but to whom (I don't think it's my local building society) do we owe this debt and interest?

And as is pointed out here -

"Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 12 July 2016 5:15:51 AM
"Every single western country is now mired in incredible debt..."

So I ask, who are the people/organisations collecting all the interest payable from these foolish countries that have flogged their credit cards too much? Where's all this credit coming from? And where's all the interest going? Whoever it is must be mighty wealthy by now.

Or, is it as I suspect, this debt and interest are nothing more than a lot of bits and bytes in someone's global data base that has no actual tangible reality?

Who controls this data base?

I'd really like to know the answers to these questions, because they'd put Mr Tristan Ewins' essay and the comments above into greater perspective for me.

Anybody?

voxUnius, the parliament Office of Finance's web site does show info
on Australia's borrowing. I have not looked at it for some time.
It appears that most of the government borrowing is in Australian dollars.
Much would have come from overseas.
Then there is the borrowing of companies and personal debt such as
housing debt.
The total is over one trillion dollars of which the govt debt is about
$400 billion as far as I remember.
Anyway, it does not matter as it will never be paid back.
The so called "quantitative easing" we have heard so much about in
recent years is just money printing with a "nicer" word.
There is another word for it "Pixel Money" ie the pixels on the screen
when the Central Bankers click "send" on so many $Billions.
Frankly the whole thing is sounding dodgey.
Like you I would like to hear some really knowledgeable feedback.

About $250 Billion is owned by various Australian governments. About $750 Billion is PRIVATE debt. Private debt is by far the biggest problem. But all we ever seem to hear about is public debt. That is: the public sector is expected to shoulder the burden for the private sector with Austerity and so on. If we want to get public sector debt specifically under control the way to go is to raise tax ; and to service that debt sustainably such as to keep it proportionately steady ; or otherwise to gradually reduce its scope.

But one thing we have to remember is that investment often requires borrowing. And if we do not borrow to invest in infrastructure for instance - the whole economy will suffer reduced productivity.

Some will say therefore that the government should 'step back' and let the private sector provide infrastructure and services instead. Problem is that the private sector raises finance less efficiently than the public sector. Only governments enjoy 'AAA credit ratings'. Then there's the cost of executive salaries, private dividends and so on. Also you don't want the private sector moving in on what are properly natural public monopolies - using market power to fleece the public.

There's also the possibility the global finance system could break down with defaults on debt ; and the US owes more than just about anyone ; but who's going to force them to pay up? And what would happen to the global economy under such circumstances?

Runner - if a welfare system can cushion people against 'the hard realities of life' maybe that's not such a bad thing? Not such a bad thing if people don't end up on the street and unable to feed themselves and their family if they lose their jobs...

What you also need to do re: debt is to view it all in proportion. Sweden might have about $200 billion in debt... But how much is private and how much is public? And comparing them to Australia - and in proportion - which is really better off? If Sweden has more productive assets still in public ownership that has to be considered as well.

The debt is also a feature of capitalism. Where markets can't expand fast enough to absorb production. And debt is the only thing keeping economic growth going. Ironically it is socialist measures that could save capitalism. Under these circumstances efficiencies could create room for private consumption elsewhere. So again think natural public monopolies in areas like power, water, communications, other infrastructure and so on.

The problem is people going on about debt without understanding these facts. It is always used to justify public austerity. But no-one is turning on the banks for instance - and demanding they stop extending credit ad infinitum to people who may never be able to pays those debts off.