Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The recent banking crisis was probably caused mainly by mortgages being granted to people who could not afford to repay them. British and European as well as American banks were involved. Another factor was the selling of loans among banks with no concern about their eventual repayment. They were improperly regarded as assets.

Those who began the trend were American Socialists, but this does not necessarily imply that Socialism is automatically a bad thing as seems to be assumed without question - almost axiomatically in the USA.

Socialism began far earlier than Marx and should not be identified absolutely with Marxism, which advocates workers seizing by force the means of production.

Socialism is best summed up by Louis Blanc's maxim "from each according to his ability - to each according to his needs".

If we consult the New Testament it is clear that as a young carpenter (who inherited his father's business some time before his ministry) Jesus understood and was dependent on Capitalism and did not condemn it. Many of his parables clarify this, though they do seem to be aware of the fact that Capitalism can sometimes be rather severe. An awkward fact for Christians, which it would not be fair to omit, is that neither Jesus nor the New Testament seemed to go out of their way to condemn Slavery.

Both Judaism and Christianity affirmed the principle that within the religious community inequalities could sometimes be adjusted by charity given freely by the wealthy to the poor - especially if the latter were in danger of starvation. In early Judaism individuals called "parnasim" - internationally wealthy elite Jews might be expected to take on the entire subsitence of a generation undergoing famine through climactic conditions. In the early church as described in Acts the Christians sought to mitigate the poverty of many by the freewill giving of wealthy converts, so "from each according to his ability - to each according to his needs" was put into practice voluntarily in response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. In II Corinthians Paul praised Christians in Aegean churches who supported the Jerusalem church at a time of special need.

The difference between the primitive commonality of goods among Christians in Acts and modern Socialism is clear. Redistribution among early Christians was voluntary, but under a modern Socialist government, redistribution is non-voluntary and is brought about through the taxation system. In a sense the State is like a modern Robin Hood who robs the rich to feed and take care of the poor.

Modern Socialism seems to fail when the State owns everything. I don't think even President Obama, who is well to the left of most European Socialists advocates State ownership of everything. Therefore he believes to some extent in what we call "a mixed economy" - a blend of private sector Capitalism and some Socialism, where the latter is helpful and addresses some of the harsh inequalities of the world.

Broadly speaking the wealthy are "the Few", and the rest are the "the Many". So in some ways it might be thought surprising that all modern states do not opt for Socialism through the democratic process. Why don't they?

When the "Few" (wealthy) who are generally better educated than the others can persuade the "Many" that their interests are best met by leaving Capitalism and the Status Quo intact,they can succeed in the election of a non-Socialist government. Often such governments alternate with thier liberal and socialist alternatives - mainly because of the fickleness and short-term thinking of the general populace.

I believe that there are good grounds in the New Testament for modern Christians to support a skilful, fiscally sound blend of socialism and capitalism. Private Sector solutions can often be very effective, but they don't invariably meet all modern needs. We do not believe in private armies nowadays, and there are systems such as railways and the post which may be best organised nationally.

If USA Republicans can devise a health system based on insurance which meets the needs of all the poor, disabled, mentally ill and marginalised - as well as those who can afford it at present, let them do so, rather than merely criticise initiatives made by Democrats. You don't have to adopt the British system which really does work for us. Nevertheless it seems uncompassionate and un-Christian to ignore or pass over the health needs of so many Americans who at present cannot afford the present private sector solutions.