Well its all ended happily! Woolies got their advertising cheap,
the farmers got 4.8$million, as people did extra shopping, those
farmers who can't buy shoes for little Johnny, can ring the CWA
hotline.

"the global population heads towards unsustainable numbers. When are you guys going to use that massive knowledge to help the siuation rather than justify it continuing to be the same to become worse?"

Mungo, whilst large organisations like the Catholic Church, ban
condoms, ban the snip, ban the pill, encourage people to breed like
rabbits in the third world, no matter what, there is little that
us people can do except protest loudly, which I do! Yup, another
80 million a year are added to the planet. If Aus was wiped out
tomorrow, we would all be replaced in 90 days.

Give every woman on the planet access to family planning I say,
but the Church is far more powerful then I am. In the third world,
where they have much say, they are able to influence Govts in
a huge way, to comply with their agenda. All very sad but true.

I guess more little Catholics, to outbreed the muslims, is perhaps
a reason for all this, although I doubt that they would admit to
that.

Mungo “Do the people with better education and more resources have a duty of care for those less fortunate or not.”

I would agree with volition’s response too.

I think you need to separate commerce and compassion.

I would note the organization of any business or any market place works on the simple notion of supply and demand. The price which adjusts to the point of equilibrium between supply and demand will be lower if the less-fortunate are less able to participate from the demand side (=lower demand for a given supply would cause prices to drop)

However, I think guidance from dearest Margaret Thatcher, font of much great conservative wisdom, is called for.

To quote Margaret

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; “

Extending on Margaret’s point, compassion, as expressed through philanthropy, can only be achieved by people who have resources to be philanthropic with.

That is the way in which those with more resources discharge any compassion they feel for those less fortunate.

However, it is a “moral choice” and not a “duty”.

“Duty” in the context you mean it, is a social convention imposed by a self-righteous and rigid social order of class hierarchy. It was discarded along with parlour maids and wing collars.

The alternative to a “free market activity” is a “controlled market activity”.
All attempts to implement “controlled market activity”, where supply and demand are regulated by government, have been miserable failures from Moscow to Havana to Beijing and even the half-arsed solutions of “nationalised industries” in otherwise “market economies” have been discarded for their proven ineptness and inability to produce long term socially beneficial outcomes.

VK3AUU, unless somebody is holding a gun to this person's head and forcing them to make the exchange, they willingly did it. It does not matter that there was only one other person who would buy this product, they still had the option of not trading.

There is no 'set down in stone' number of competitors that a market needs to be able to determine a market price. If there are only 2 big players on the demand side in a market (and all the suppliers can't sustain their business), then so be it, that just means people(the suppliers) need to move to other industries. There is no RIGHT to make a living in whatever industry you choose, only the opportunity.

Hi Guys
Interesting responses. Got ya thinking. Pericles your first post was 31/1/2005 you are highly skilled please dont sell yourself short....
Your response I suppose we should try a little harder. But it is really very difficult to know where to start when both the government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, can make only token improvements.

So I carry on feeling vaguely guilty.
I realy relate it is a big call and the answer that comes to me is "How big is your world" You are a clever articulate person with great communication skills. How about just getting people to stop and think about the uselessness of the heady comments they post in this forum. Challenge them to think outside the box. You are already an experienced person in this forum well able to have others think outside of their rut. Challenge them. How could you do that? most of the conversations here are circular. Create a new circle dont play in the old one. I am sure you are fully aware of the spin you are given everyday, why continue it?

Volition I agree that governements are a pain but think about your own response, listen to your own heart dont give away the power to an excuse,....You said....Everyone would be more inclined to help if they weren't already being taxed to the nose by the government though, with the current system they're much more likely to need the money for themselves.
This is part of the circular argument dont let it trap you (blame something else it gives you an excuse to not do something.....do they realy need the money? try living in poverty.
Col Rouge you also have been in this forum a very long time and have a huge overview of many topics, Why defend the status quo and get bogged in inane detail. The alternative to a “free market activity” is a “controlled market activity”. Surely there are more than two ends of this discussion and it is not that black and white be creative what could sit in the middle?

Mungo, what I said was based on the notion that people have limited incomes and with the increase in their disposable incomes I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that people would give more to private charities. Especially if they knew the government wasn't going to do anything(even though the government's solutions now aren't exactly great, but it allows people to sleep in their beds at night so hey we're all happy right?).

You claim that I'm using this as an excuse to get out of having to give money, but I think that charge is actually more suited to somebody who is FOR government intervention in the matter. "Oh the government is already doing something, taxing the people who earn more, so I don't have to bother". So your appeal to the heart strings doesn't really work here, it's actually MORE reflective of the idea of charity if people give it voluntarily. What kind of charity is it if it is forced? It'd be nice if people were willing to give money to people who needed help, but there is no obligation(under a free market), nor should there be.

As for the idea of a semi-controlled market, this idea isn't exactly new, but it still means government involvement so it is at least controlled to some extent. This is also forgetting about the problem of coming up with a way to 'only semi' control the market in a fair manner, as well as the problem distortion(unavoidable) to the market it would cause.

Volition, why do large corporate mergers and buy-outs require ACCC approval - surely there is a market place no matter if there is only one or two players on either side??

Look, I am a firm supporter of business, and the need for business to make money. But I also have a hefty streak balance, in that continued growth and corporate greed at the expense of all else are a sure way to lead to our downfall eventually. Corporations (and people) have a responsibility to those that rely on them, and to the environment. This is my problem with using many commodities from third world countries - they are often produced at the expense of the environment and to the long-term detriment of the world. God, I sound like a rabid greenie (I'm not though - you'll have to take my word on that)! But we have learnt some tough lessons the hard way in Australia about how the country stands up to farming at different intensities. We should be enabling countries that are behind ours in development, to create their industries without doing the damage that we have inflicted in this country. I support the idea of this happening through commerce, rather than by charities or govt handouts (the most inefficient way of getting anything). But for this to happen, there must be fair markets. I know you dont seem to like this term Volition, but it means markets where there is not a dominant player distorting the supply-demand pull. Does this mean that we will pay more for everything? Yep! But we get most things too cheap now. Paying below a products fair value will only turn around to bite you on the arse in the long term.