I'm always wary when articles refer (either positively or negatively) to "capitalism", more so when they ascribe actions to it. Depending on what one means by

I'm always wary when articles refer (either positively or negatively) to "capitalism", more so when they ascribe actions to it. Depending on what one means by the term, and ones preconceptions, the response to the notion that the poor are helped by "capitalism" can range from "well, of course" to "how surprising." I'm not clear on exactly what the Times thinks capitalism is, but their tone falls towards the latter. The following article does a good job of conveying the problems with labels such as "capitalism" and "socialism": http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/15/long-on-zaxlebax http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/15/long-on-z...