Col Rouge,
I did not say that all wealthy people are nasty. Nor did I intend to suggest that all poor people are kind. I just think that if you inherit a house from your mum and dad it makes it a bit harder to understand the plight of the homeless. If you can take for granted the fact that your education will be paid for by your family and that your networks will always provide employment for you, it will be just a tad more difficult to get why people who were not born with these associations are resentful and desperate. Methinks, Col Rouge that thou protest too much!

vivy... you raise an interesting point.

What is the chief criticism of capitalism? Why world wealth accumulating into the hands of a few.
Welfare can be seen as a form of socialism if you subscribe to the notion that it partly alleviates this issue.

Here's an interesting idea - capitalism is based on the desire to accumulate. It's problem is that it can create a lot of poor people, and a few very rich ones.

The thing is, it is better than the alternatives, and who is to say that those who have fought their way to the top do not deserve their riches?

There are however, plenty of people who haven't worked for their success - they are those who have inherited their wealth, and live in aristocratic circles of wealth.

Here's an idea - work toward abolishing inheritances.

The problem is, that many people work their whole lives to ensure a stable life for their children - but who's to say the children are better off having everything handed to them on a platter?

Many would cry foul over having their riches seized by the state upon their death, but this idea of having wealth transfer over... this is what creates many of our problems.

It wouldn't necessarily be a huge impact - assets would be the main issue.
Shareholders would have the opportunity to buy out shares owned by deceased owners, with legislation to allow boards the opportunity to consolidate purchases in line with current ownership proportions.

I'm sure other arrangements can be made for the purchase of general assets, instead of a simple handover. There would have to be strict controls over the process however and this would have the free market idealists furious.

But really - it would be a way of making the free market system sustainable.

Just a thought anyhow.

Great article: Christianity and social justice. Certainly makes one think. I wonder how many of us have had much personal experience being a recipient of charity or welfare?

As far as I can ascertain, capitalism as inherited from the richest nation on this planet (with a very large number of citizens living in dire poverty from which there is no way out) is based on the Puritan Christian belief that God will reward those with riches who deserve it.
Ergo, those who do not have riches are not deserving and it is not necessary to feel uncomfortable about it, but because we are Christian we'll set up some charities so some can do good works and it will probably earn some brownie points as well with the big Man upstairs. If those poor people just tried a bit harder God would reward them too with wealth (which of course is monetary). Don't come up with any possible reasons for not being wealthy, because then you're taking on a 'victim' role or are just Lazy.

Why is it so hard to have a philosophy that every human being has a right to reasonable personal safety, food and shelter? It is nigh impossible to climb out of any hole if those fundamental self (and one's children) preservation issues are not addressed. How can you look to develop talents, grow and become productive if you barely have a tenuous hold on the basics?

As a tax payer I expect my taxes to be used by the government to provide social justice. Social INsecurity breeds fragmentation of a society. Look at the US. Rabid patriotism is the only thing that keeps Americans stick together. Anyone who has spent any time there will soon tell you what a terribly fragmented society that is! The children of the wealthy are pretty secure in their future, merit is increasingly irrelevant, but the ability to pay is.

vivy, we have a system of accepted minimums. From minimum education to minimum wage to a minimal code of behavior. In all instances there can be found a portion of society unwilling to put the necessary effort into reaching those lofty heights. There is, simply put, a portion of society unwilling to participate and therefore do not reap any significant portion of the available reward for that inclusion. There are as many reasons for people not being comfortable in life as there are people living an uncomfortable existence.
I will give you a "fer-instance". I have a friend. A man who is a very personable individual and well educated. Comes from a well to do "upper middle class" family of professionals. Can't keep a job. Mooches from his family for support. And lives a very uncomfortable life. Why? Cuz he can't keep his mouth shut and get on with the job at hand. He is forever trying to tell those who hire him how to go about their business. I've known him for 30 years and nothing has changed.
And his parents have spent more years believing they have personally failed him and will die feeling guilty for their sons choices.
I always like to see how lotto winners behave and how they have faired after a couple of years. You can't even give some people everything, millions, and their poor before you know it.

Col Rouge, don't know how old you are, but 86 in June, am old enough to remember the Roaring Twenties which is now said by social scientists to be the foreunner of what is happening now, even companies like Bunge and Dreyfus back to dominating the grain trade.

You might not know it, Col, but we've got dairy farmers over here in the West only saving their futures by selling out because their properties close to the city are bringing high prices.

Our world is fast becoming a haven for the new business mafia, the corporate racketeers. Most now believe they are putting it over the Chinese economically, but forget that the Chinese did not come down in the last shower, and possibly only finally doing what Karl Marx advised, to make good use of Western capitalism to make way for a happier future, not one of capitalistic greed, but a future that benefits all.

vivy, I'm not entirely sure I understand the question about "wiping warm gooey stinky vomit off your clothing?", but I guess it has something to do with money not being particularly important. And I have done my share of vomit-wiping, by the way.

My issue was with saintfletcher and his assertion that the welfare state in the uk had been dismantled, when it so obviously has not. The fact that it doesn't actually alleviate misery is one of the lessons we should learn - throwing money indiscriminately at a problem is never the most effective means to solve it.

How much more sensible is the "programmed charity" of a Bill and Melinda Gates, who make sure that money is used to achieve a specific outcome, not just to recycle it into the economy via the pockets of the poor.

As has been achieved in the past, the philanthropic establishment of a school, hospital, hospice, orphanage etc. has a specific outcome that provides direct value. This concept has been lost, and replaced by the likes of the UK welfare state - pointless, directionless, meaningless charity that isn't properly used or appreciated.

West, I didn't understand a word of your post, except that you don't like Baroness Thatcher. The simple fact is that the welfare state in every developed country is consuming an ever-increasing share of the national wealth, and it still isn't performing the function for which it was devised.

It's time to try something else.

Unfortunately, the politicians whose task it should be to effect change are themselves programmed to avoid rocking the boat, for fear of losing their job.

So, no chance there, then.