col ,there is nothing wrong with helping the impoverished and disadvantaged to a better education , better health and a better life .
there is nothing worse than seeing unhealthy, disadvantaged children hanging on to their poor and uneducated parents .their lives will be stunted, along with their hope for a better tomorrow . unless peter saunder's ideas can produce hope and health [not necessarily bagfulls of money ]for the poor they should be dismissed .

QUOTE: The only chance we stand is to ditch the baggage of economic so-called 'rationalism' as soon as possible.

RESPONSE:-

For what its worth I see very little neo-liberalism actually being implemented (although I would be more interested in classical liberalism anyway).

As a people we are taxed more highly than at any time in our history and welfare expenditure continues to dominate the federal budget. Neo-liberalism is popular in rhetoric but pretty rarely seen in practice.

Just for fun could you tell us what you propose as the replacement for "economic rationalism"

POVERTY IS A STATE OF MIND! NO MAN IS POOR WHO HAS INTUITIVE ENERGY AND A CREATIVE MIND THAT HE GAINFULLY EMPLOYS.

Philo

Your theory sounds fine at first glance. But, if there is no food, the brain does not fire due to lack of protein. Without that the notion of employment is not on the cards.

The problem: "poverty"
The solution: "Love your neighbour as yourself"
The Source: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart"

Trite and cliche'd yes :)

James Chapter 2 (New Testament) 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


So we have St Vinnies, Salvation Army, Mother Theresa, etc and our own fellowship has a 'food bank'.

I would add to all the above,(its there in principle anyway) to just respond to the condition without responding to any root causes will simply perpetuate the cycle. (instutionalized structures creating poverty and possible personal issues,lack of training/skill).

But these things should come mostly from our own hearts, rather than some legislative regime. When we just rage in the streets for 'government' to do it all, we cop out of our own responsibility.

Isn't it depressing when we hear all the quaint phrases from the Politicians who use these issues for scoring points, only to be elected and then 'reneg' on a 'free' way and make it a 'toll' way, or hand out lucrative consultancy contracts to 'their' flavor professionals (both sides do this of course) disproportionatly re-allocate finance in terms of their own political constituencies...pork barrelling etc...

I think social redemption is up to the socially redeeemed and spiritually renewed to pass on at a personal and smaller group level.
After all, as Senator Bob Collins once said.. "Politics-is about POWER not fairness". The jury just came in, and the verdict is read- "true"

Boaz-David, I wonder where you get the idea that anyone here is 'raging in the streets for government to fix things'? I see no call for that.

You are making the same error that Peter Saunders makes when he says there are only two alternatives. You yourself advocate another way; one that has, over the past 2000 years been proved inadequate as a way of producing decent societes (of course it can be a wonderful thing for producing decent individuals but often is not).

Terje does not see that there is much neo-liberalism around but then Terje believes in absolutes. As for an alternative to neo-liberalism one small idea (not a theory by any means) is to require that capitalists take some responsibility for the effects of their actions.

It seems a bit unfair for the consuming indidivual to have all the responsiblity to make the right choice, particularly when people just are not able to know what the right choice is, but the marketing individual has no responsibility.