Well, I have a couple of comments to both of you. First, I am all for supporting charities, having worked for the last 2 1/2 years on financing and funding issues for not-for-profit organizations, but I am not convinced that switching spending from personal consumption to charitable causes is necessarily the best way to help those in need. The contribution to aggregate demand of shopping may actually be a better contributor to the social and economic well-being of all than a simple donation to charity. On the other hand, I am by no means convinced that buying another handbag, say, when one already has three, is a very productive investment, and, for that reason, much X-mas spending is not particularly productive and might actually make a smaller contribution to economic stimulation than donating to charity. Rather than simply substituting charitable giving for personal spending, one option might be to give more on top of Christmas spending. I agree that it is not a simple equation, however: certainly it is better for the soul, or better for the self if you prefer, to give to charity, but people’s finances are constrained by the downturn, so asking them to give more does not make sense either. Maybe one option would be to buy X-mas gifts produced by charities, social enterprises or other community sector organizations. But, more broadly, what to do? Of course, as with most such issues, there is a key role for government: government spending should support charities or the causes they support, as well as incomes across society. Indeed, increased direct government spending on social issues may often (not always) be more effective even that supporting charities. And Governments should do this, not least, because the social costs associated with constantly trying to get ahead, build up one’s private pension etc., are huge. It is a tragedy that Christine had to go back to work so early, when she wanted to spend more time with her child; it is a crime that her government, like the then Canadian government, also did so little to allow her that option. It is a crime further compounded by the fact that her government forced her to invest in an insecure private pension, when it could have just as easily expanded defined benefits in a government-controlled and funded plan. There need not be a trade-off between staying home with one’s children and having a secure retirement income. In this sense, a genuine “slow” approach probably requires expanded government spending. This can come from increased deficit finance (the best option), increasing taxes (mostly in good times) to pay for pensions and social programs, and, should households choose to save instead of spend at X-mas, having banking mechanisms in place to ensure that a higher proportion of those savings are reinvested by banks in genuinely productive investments for society at large (as is done by ‘coporatist’ northern European countries). Thought of broadly, slow living is an extention of social policy.