Is welfare capitalism?

Some form of welfare is required to maintain capitalism to prevent the poor from rebelling against the great concentration of wealth among the elites that happens inevitably unless the capitalism is strongly regulated.

Canell said:

Is there any controversy between capitalism and welfare?

Click to expand...

Only in the minds of the most heartless and delusional of individuals.

Kreton said:

I don't like the idea of welfare at a federal level. I think people in a community should support each other. But Americans are too self centered for that.

Click to expand...

I think the problem there generally lies in the fact that "community" has less and less of a meaning to people. I mean, how can you feel a sense of community to enact long-term plans when you expect to move inside of 10 years? How can you feel like you're a part of a community when you just moved there a couple of years ago?

Canell said:

Yes but in order to give to John the state must take from Joe.
There were no welfare benefits 100 years ago. Right?

Click to expand...

Not on a national level but that didn't stop local governments, including states, from enacting it.

Canell said:

Welfare

Is there any controversy between capitalism and welfare? Should it be eliminated?

Click to expand...

No and no - both are needed for the system to work properly.

If you want to put this in strictly economic terms then welfare is the idle cost for unused machinery. Think of it as paying electricity to run a computer even though the computer is sitting idle. Unlike computers, however, people cannot be turned off and on without a high cost. If you turn people off they degrade. If not at least marginally maintained over the long term they become unusable. It takes years and years to manufacture replacements and they are expensive to produce. Keeping the machines idle (instead of turning them off) keeps them in relatively good condition at all times so they can be put to full use when needed.