A children's story for Cherri

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I want to explain the difference between your philosophy (so often copied from other sources to this forum) and mine. The easiest way is to tell a story.

We are walking down the street and meet a panhandler asking for money. You think we should help this person. After all, he appears homeless, hungry and destitute. I'm not convinced. How do we know the person is really poor? How do we know the person is not a drug or alcohol abuser? You want to give the person money because it feels like the right thing to do. I disagree.

You become frustrated and call over a policeman. Let's call this cop, Officer Fred L. Government. Officer Government tells me I have to give up some money. Oh, he explains, it seems you have high minded friends throughout the city. He is going to take half of all my money. While tempted to disagree, I cannot help but notice Fred has a large handgun at his side.

You and your friends feel morally superior. I feel robbed. Not only do I lose half of my money, I hear you prattle on about how selfish I am. You say that I am wealthy and can "afford" to pay for your noble impulses. I point out I have made significant sacrifices to gain increased education. I have delayed purchasing material comforts while saving enough money to start a business. I have worked longer hours than many. In short, I have earned the money you have taken.

After a few months of having Fred visit my office regularly and leave with a bag full of money, we take another walk. Sure enough, we see the same homeless man. You call Fred. This is an outrage, you cry. Fred must take more money!

I respond by saying that more money will change matters, except for making me poorer and Fred richer. Giving people money does not solve problems. Walk onto any American Indian reservation in the west and see for yourself. Giving away my money may make you feel better, but it does very little to change the world. The "war" on poverty was no more successful than the "war" on drugs.

Good intentions do not necessarily make for good public policy. I don't doubt your sincere desire to help others. The brutal truth, however, is that your benevolent impulses can often do as much harm as good.

Society is and will always be unfair. Some people are more talented than others. Some are harder working or more creative or just plain lucky. If you equally distributed the entire wealth of the country, within a decade you would find people living in poverty. Human stupidity and irresponsibilty are utterly resistant to regulation or legislation or the best intentions of others.

Officer Fred may be able to keep some of the strong from preying on some of the weak. He cannot, however, protect us from ourselves.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 04, 2001

Answers

Here's an alternate story:

Cherri and "Remember" are walking down the street and meet a panhandler asking for money. Cherri thinks we should help this person. After all, he appears homeless, hungry and destitute. "Remember" is not convinced, so he pulls out his legally registered handgun and shoots the homeless man in the head. Problem solved.

-- (A@different.story), June 04, 2001.


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

- call me heartless, but that is funny!!!!

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 04, 2001.


Next you are going to post a story telling us how PayRod is worth 50k per at bat. Or how Ken Lay of Enron "earned" his 50 million this year. Maybe a story explaining why it is OK for a bank to lend a DotCom millions on a hope and a prayer, but requires a mountain of information for the average person to buy a home, backed by the actual house too boot.

Your story is worthy of the dumpster. It is geared for somebody with a room temp mentality. Sadly this appears common place these days.

"No child will be left behind".

Now run along as you will miss the Golly North radio show.

-- (blah@zzz.com), June 04, 2001.


Were I to shoot a person, I would accept full responsibility. If I were a liberal, on the other hand, I could lay the blame on a post- traumatic stress chemical imbalance exacerbated by industrial pollution, gender bias and violence on television.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 04, 2001.

Two observations:

1) - In the last two years in this area I seldom see the professional "I will work for food" people anymore. The used to occupy every free-way exit. Is this true in other cities? Is there a reason for this (like police "attention") or is it just another fad whose time has passed?

2) - Driving home yesterday I passed the estate of Mel S., one of Fortune's 500 wealthiest Americans. (Mel is new money, he made it by developing shopping centers). Anyway, there was much earth movement in Mel's acreage. Best I could tell, he is enlarging his already substantial private golf course.

I bet that some people would find this conspicuous consumption to be obscene and that Mel's wealth should be more heavily taxed (even though most of us could live very well on his property taxes alone).

I don't understand this mentality. Mel has created wealth for many thru his enterprises. I don't envy his success or his wealth. IMO envy is worse (slightly) than greed. Greed says "I want more and more". Envy says "I want what you have got".

BTW, Mel is a Democrat.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 04, 2001.



You give me easy questions. The salary of a baseball players is a private economic transaction between the player and the team's owner. How much a player makes is, pardon the expression, none of your damn business. If you don't like how much a CEO makes, don't buy the stock. Better yet, buy enough stock to get on the board of directors and cut his or her salary.

Why don't you make big money? Maybe you can't run a major company or hit .333 against major league pitching. The real issue here is what gives you the right to judge (or interfere with) the private economic transactions of others? Who are you to decide who makes "too much" and who makes "too little?"

Now dazzle us with your economic and intellectual wizardry and explain what makes you smarter than the marketplace? Perhaps you can share some successful examples of command economies? Collectivist states? Wage and price controls? If you could, you'd probably be making more money.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 04, 2001.


Be glad to zombie just as soon as you admit we don't have no Free Market in a ton of places.

Rationalize away,,,,,

-- (blah@zzz.com), June 04, 2001.


Sorry, Lars, but you are making sense. The inevitable personal attacks are sure to follow.

Some people (read liberals) think the world is unfair. They think they can change the world through the miracle of modern government. Liberals avoid examples like the American Indian reservations because they can't stomach the abject failure of government "charity." On the other side, they find the wealthy morally objectionable, even when this wealth has been honestly earned. Sour grapes, writ large.

In Cherri's case, I think she is acting from noble motives, but suffers from a lack of knowledge.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 04, 2001.


Blah, blah, blah.

You were the one to use the example of a baseball player. From my perspective, you are free to play baseball and earn a position on a major league team. All it requires is talent. If you earn a position, you are free to charge whatever the market will bear. After all, your compensation is a private matter.

Most goods and services exist within competitive markets. We can quible over market imperfections, but I think we live in a relatively free market economy. When I go to buy a new car, there are many different models and manufacturers. With the Internet, I can check prices on many goods and services without leaving my desk.

The emphasis of free market is not on the "market," but on the "free." Our economic model allows individual economy freedom to earn more money, or less; to buy more of Good 'A' or less of Good 'B.' We do not have government bureaucrats setting production quotas for factories or stores with only one type of shoe. Capitalism increases our ability to choose.

Some people make better choices than others. Lars will buy stock in Enron while someone else will buy crack cocaine. In ten years, why punish Lars for making a good decision and try to rescue someone else who has made poor decisions?

I'm looking forward to your economic analysis.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 04, 2001.


Oh yes, Mel has a trophy-wife; another perq of power. It just isn't fair. Maybe we should tax trophy spouses.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 04, 2001.


You fucking repugs are so stupid! First of all what in the world makes you think that Cherri would be seen on the street with you? You have got to get your head out of your ass! Excuse me for telling you this but the deficit grew big time under repug rule. No one (liberals included) want to be held at gunpoint and made to give up their money to help someone they do not want to help. I will tell you one thing you stupid fucking repug, lets quit helping out people who are destitute. Will that make you happy? I bet you will be laughing your ass off when all of the poor people get together and collectively kick you and your rich repug buddies dicks into the dirt. Read your history and you will see that the have nots only take it for so long before they take the haves for everything they worked their butts off for. That would piss me off too but you know something must be wrong when there are more poor people than there are rich people. You repugs are like this. Say there are 10 people and they each have a cookie. You (being the smart repug that you are) have figured out a way to make each person give you their cookie. Now everyone is starving but you. You worked hard to figure out how to get all the cookies. (cheated people day and night!) You'll be damned before you give up any of your hard earned cookies (even though half of them are molding). The repug attitude is fuck you starving people. I have my cookies and you are not going to get any of them! This story may be simplified but in America today thats how repugs are, greedy, deceptive election stealing morons!

oh yeah, FUCK the old forum!

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 04, 2001.


If you think I am going to debate with somebody who thinks "all it takes is talent", well dream on bozo. Hey check out a local HS game sometime, see if you are "entertained". Not about talent.

Lets end the use of taxpayer monies to build the stadiums. The roads and parking lots. Hell lets eliminate the "Corporate" welfare shell and see how long it takes for this bs to end.

While we are at it, do the same for Budweiser and Coke. Lets see how long they can compete without the taxpayer taking their risk. Break up the Airwave Monopoly and see how long it takes.

Now run along I am not bored any longer.

-- (blah@zzz.com), June 04, 2001.


Remember the old forum, your story has some very interesting distortions in it, but they are so commonly believed that I doubt you included them in an attempt to deceive anyone, but rather because you mistakenly believe your story is substantially true.

It is entirely true that government takes a very large percentage of our incomes. What with federal income tax, the Social Security tax and various local taxes, one half your income may even understate the matter a bit. No distortion there.

Where the distortion comes in is the panhandler. The feds take by far the largest tax bite. What do they spend it on? First and foremost, they spend it on the military, on medicare and to pay interest on the national debt.

The military budget goes to soldier's pay, housing and benefits, to weaponry, military pensions and the veteran's administration, maintenance and so on. No panhandler's there.

Medicare goes to pay for medical care for the elderly, who are generally in poor health. They are also the people who made this country. No panhandler's there.

Interest on the national debt goes to holder's of US Treasury paper. No panhandlers there.

Social Security taxes more pay for SS benefits. Benefits are calculated (in part) based on what you paid in. No panhandlers there.

Of all remaining federal spending, your taxes are going to such stuff as building interstate highways and other public works, research, farm subsidies, dams, embassies, meat inspection, trade offices, the Library of Congress, and so on. While you may not like or want all these programs, the people who run them are working folks, not panhandlers.

Local taxes mostly go for police, fire, roads, schools, parks, libraries and courts. No panhandlers there.

Welfare payments make up a tiny fraction of the federal or local budgets. You make it sound like ALL government money was spent on such programs.

Lastly, I have never seen Cherri suggesting that welfare be modeled on the goal of redistributing all wealth or eliminating poverty or any such stuff you wrongly impute to her. Your criticism is entirely off the mark of what Cherri is actually saying and badly misrepresents her views.

Other than that, no problemo.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 04, 2001.


Dear Tony,

I can stand it no longer. You get me so hot when you talk dirty. I am all a-tingle down there.

What kind of name is Baloney? Maybe you are Italian (I hope so) and your real name is Bologna. Those Ellis Island white-breads screwed up so many beautiful names. Maybe you are Irish---Maloney, Mahoney, etc. That's OK, the important thing is that you be a fucking Catholic.

I live in NYC. Do you ever get here? We could eat at a charming bistro that I know in the Village. We could chat and laugh and drink vino. The we could go to my boho pad and fuck.

Please call soon.

Lorelei Lubriccio

1-212-629-3322

-- (DFD@WW.West), June 04, 2001.


Sorry LL. I am a married man. I am not Catholic. I am not Italian (at least I don't think I am). I love my wife and would not fuck around on her. I'm sorry it makes you so hot "down there" but you will just have to masturbate because I am not going to go easy on all these stupid fucking repugs that have infested the United States of America. (if you ask me, I think they are terraforming earth like in the movie, "The Arrival") Plus you must be pretty stupid yourself for putting your fucking phone number on this forum. I like smart women and smart women don't do that.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 04, 2001.


I want all of you to know that I could care less what Tony does behind my back. My very worst decision in life was to marry this worthless limp dick pussy of a man. He can’t even get it up anymore so cheating on me is not an option for that little weenie. On the other hand, I have made a LOT of new friends lately and Tony’s days are numbered. He is about to discover just how smart I am.

-- Mrs. Baloney (at@your.service), June 04, 2001.

Sorry. Wrong number.

-- (Telephone @Operator. Dial now), June 04, 2001.

Two things. One, my wifes surname is not Baloney (remember its a fake name so you repug dickheads have something fun to remember me by) and two, if I ever had a limp dick then I would definately try out some Viagra. (I bet a repug pharmacist designed that drug for his repug buddies!). Nice going DFD. Looks like someone called you on your moniker. Stupid fucking repugs are all the same. What a bunch of morons.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 04, 2001.

Lorelei, don’t waste your time with this dickless dufuss, he can’t satisfy anyone including himself. Viagra my ass. I ground up 14 of those suckers and mixed it in with the pasta sauce……NADA! You however sound like a real player so why not come over some night. Oh don’t worry about little Tony, he normally crashes about 9:30 after a day of ranting against the republican’s….total loser that boy.

-- Mrs. Baloney (at@your.service), June 05, 2001.

The largest percentage of federal spending is on entitlements. Let's not play the fiction of Social Security existing "off budget." Social security costs about $400b. The Treasury Department is next at slightly under $400b. Next, we have HHS that will actually exceed Treasury in the next FY at over $400b (Entitlements, Part 2). Defense comes in at just above $300b.

As for the panhandler, let's not take the example quite so literally. The federal government spends many so many ways one analogy will never fit.

Government generates no revenue. Government is funded by others, the expropriation of wealth from individuals and corporations. Normally, this is called theft, but we are a nation of laws so we need another name--taxation.

The largest single category of federal spending is entitlements. More correctly, the transfer of wealth from some to others.

You can wax about the elderly who "built" this country. The people who really built the country, the capitalists, have little need for an income maintenance and disability program. As you ought to know, social security is not a "trust fund." It's "pay as you go." I'm paying someone else's benefits. Most people draw far more out of social security than they ever paid in. Of course, this particular Ponzi scheme will end before I retire, a time when every two workers will be supporting one retiree. Friendly advice, Nipper: make other plans.

Oh, and welfare does make up a bit more than a tiny fraction of the budget. The good news is that welfare was finally reformed in 1996 and the rolls have dropped, in some state by over half. Why? Welfare has time limits. It is no longer a lifetime entitlement. Amazing how resourceful people can be with a bit of incentive.

As for Cherri, if she has an original thought (and not just another cut and paste), I will be delighted to dissect it. I imagine it will be more of the fuzzy leftist thinking you so aptly captured in your post.

The Federal government does not much given the horrific amount of money it consumes, and what it does, it usually does rather poorly. The great socialist experiment has been a failure. Sorry, Nipper, but you seem the last to find out.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.




-- (fix@it.now), June 05, 2001.

TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST

-- (test@i.cle), June 05, 2001.

Were I to shoot a person, I would accept full responsibility.

No, you'd start by blaming Bill Clinton. After all, if he hadn't lied about getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, society would never have deteriorated to the point where you were shooting homeless people in the head. Next you would blame the schools for turning out mindless, godless, socialist automatons that are merely tools for the globalist agenda created by Bill Clinton. You would demand that God be thrust back into the schools to prevent any further violence against homeless people. The Ten Commandments would be posted on every wall, on every billboard, and at every intersection. We would kneel and pray to your choice of God, and those who refused would be labeled heretics and be immediately beheaded. Ahh, what bliss!

-- (A@different.story), June 05, 2001.


Give me a break. Unlike many (including former President Clinton), I accept responsibility for my behavior. I'm will not into court and lie to a judge (Gosh, I didn't know the gun was loaded!) I will not feign confusion about the definition of "is." Personally, I don't think Clinton did enough to warrant impeachment. If he had a shred of dignity or self-respect, however, he would have resigned. It's called taking responsibility for one's behavior--a concept foreign to most liberals.

Clinton did not cause the decline of western civilization. He was merely the latest poster child for a self-indulgent generation. Oh, there are been hucksters long before the former president, slick con men with a charming smile able to convince even themselves of a convenient lie, generating tears on cue. Old wine in new bottles.

Public schools do not make good or bad children... just uneducated ones. The teacher's unions and school bureaucracy cannot let a bad idea pass without putting it into the curriculum. Today's high school graduates can barely spell socialism, let alone define the term.

As for God, I am not sure even divine influence could fix our broken schools or other institutions. Modern culture is way beyond divine intervention. Shoving religion down people's throats doesn't work. Making them accept personal responsibility does. It's simple. When you make a mistake, it's your problem... not mine. I'm tired of paying for your incompetence.

As for the beheading, I kind of like the idea. It's not like your using your head for anything but a hat rack.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum. com), June 05, 2001.


I am a transgender. I was a female trapped in a man's body, so I had surgery. Now I am an anatomically correct female (except for the hair on my boobs) and I give fucking good head. Tony, we were made for each other and you fucking well know that. Denial is not just a fucking river in Egypt.

Yes, I work for GLADD. It is important fucking work; even more so than NAMBLA.

Breathlessly,

Lorelei

-- (DFD@WW.West), June 05, 2001.


Remember the old forum: "The largest single category of federal spending is entitlements. More correctly, the transfer of wealth from some to others."

I suspect you are offering us your prejudice here and calling it fact. I would appreciate a citation from an objective source to establish this "fact" (not the Cato Institute or a similar propaganda mill).

You seem to be saying that over 50% of the funds collected by the federal government are disbursed not in exchange for labor, goods or services, but simply mailed as checks to people who meet some definition or precondition, such as being over 65 years old.

Social Security and Medicare are the biggest such entitlement programs. They get you part way toward your assertion, but you'll need more than those two to get you there. BTW, it would not be correct to simply count the entire budget of the SS Administration under entitlements - only the sum of the SS checks mailed in any one year.

As for the "transfer of wealth from some to others", any transaction could fall under such a vague rubric.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


OK this thread officially closed.

Where will the bsers surface again? back to the main to find out.

-- (blah@zzz.com), June 05, 2001.


Link to OMB

I linked the easy reading version for you, Nipper. Scroll down and you can find a nice pie chart of expenditures. Social security (entitlement) is 23% of federal spending. Medicare is 12% and Medicaid is 7% (both entitlements). Other means tested entitlements (read welfare) are 6%. We are up to 48% of the federal budget, Nipper, and we haven't talked about the "other mandatory spending" that includes some entitlements and subsidies.

If you are not happy with OMB, I can give a link to the CBO or to some independent analysis. I am biased, Nipper, towards using real information and not the op-ed page of USA Today.

Oh, if you are worried about making the 50%, I can give you some examples from non defense discretionary spending. It's a veritable pork barrel of fun.

Furthermore, it is absolutely correct to charge the adminstration of an entitlement program as part of the overall cost. The bureaucracy of the SSA exists to administer social security. No social security means no SSA, and a substantial reduction in costs.

My final point, Nipper, is that government does not create wealth. It consumes wealth. Since it takes half my check, I hope it does a reasonable job with the trillions of dollars... but I have seen enough of government to remain highly skeptical. A great deal of goverment goes to pay for your noble ideas. My idea is this: pay for it yourself.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.


Even the Rich Rip Bush's Tax Scheme

by Dave Zweifel "The power of organized money has won another round."

Who, you ask, was the anti-corporate, wide-eyed liberal who said that?

The answer is none. It was written by William H. Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, the multibillionaire of Microsoft fame, following Congress' passage of the 2001 tax cut bill.

Included in the tax cut, of course, was the eventual repeal of the nation's estate tax. The senior Gates had been advocating for months that it would be unwise to repeal the tax, even though he, his son and many other rich people who joined him would benefit by its repeal.

"A hundred years ago, we did have a rigorous debate about the need to tax large accumulations of wealth," he wrote in a piece in the Washington Post. "Then, as now, wealthy people took a stand in favor of inheritance taxes. Andrew Carnegie personally testified before Congress in favor of the estate tax.

"The fate of the estate tax goes to the heart of the American experiment," he continued. "What has made America distinct from Europe is our effort not to create hereditary aristocracies and our suspicion of concentrated wealth and power weakening our democracy.

"It was understood a century ago that the estate tax was an attempt to balance conflicting American values: on the one hand, our respect for private enterprise and personal wealth, and on the other, our concern for democracy and equality of opportunity."

Gates Sr. had organized more than 1,000 American business people to oppose the repeal of the tax, but their pleas fell on deaf ears with this Congress, which is more concerned with passing tax breaks for those who lavish them with campaign contributions.

As Gates said, "They cited the plight of farmers, but when a reporter asked for living examples of real small farmers who had lost their farms, they couldn't be found. The deliberative tradition of the Senate caved under the pressure of ideology over reality."

Yes, to all too many in Congress today, the U.S. government is an evil, to be disdained and ridiculed. To them, and to too many Americans, sending it taxes to do its work is to be avoided at all costs.

Perhaps they should stop to listen to one more thing Bill Gates Sr. said:

"Our society has facilitated wealth-building by creating order, protecting freedom, creating laws to govern property relations and our marketplace, and investing in an educated work force. What's wrong with the most successful people putting one-quarter of their wealth back into the place that made their wealth and success possible? Many people repay their universities this way. Why not their country?"

Copyright 2001 The Capital Times

-- Screw the Nation! (and@its.poor), June 05, 2001.


There is no law preventing the wealthy from giving money to the government, in life or death. The real issue here is that the government takes money in the form of inheritance tax, money that has already been subject to taxation at least once.

The "aristocracy" argument is a red herring. The wealthiest families at the turn of the century are no longer the wealthiest families in America. Wealth is inevitably diluted over time. Gates children will not replicate his genius. In a few generations, there will be other billionaires and the Gates family will be primarily of historical interest.

The whole basis of inheritance tax is the notion that a person has acquired "enough" wealth and the remainder should be forcefully taken for public endeavors of dubious value. Welcome to America.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.


First, thank you for the link. It backed you up about entitlements and administering them being about 50% of the federal budget according to the OMB figures presented. My doubts are resolved in your favor.

Apparently, in light of these OMB figures, your original story for Cherri should have portrayed the panhandler as over 65 and getting one quarter of your income, not half. A tiny difference. Unless your bank uses the same math to compute your balance or your loan payment.

"My final point, Nipper, is that government does not create wealth."

I don't get it. Hoover Dam is not wealth?

You seem to be saying that when IBM hires a contractor to build a building at the IBM campus in Boca Raton and fills it with people doing research to make computers more efficient, it is creating wealth. But when the state of Michigan hires a contractor to build a building at its campus in Ann Arbor and fills it with people doing research on how to make computers more efficient it is consuming wealth, not creating it. If a utility company strings a wire to your house it creates wealth. If a public utililty does the same thing it consumes wealth.

Government may not be an especially efficient creator of wealth compared to the private sector, but it seems irrational to say it does not create wealth as a matter of definition.

"I am biased, Nipper, towards using real information and not the op-ed page of USA Today."

Gasp! Not USA Today! Anything but that! It's so... so... declasse!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


Lorelei,

Your dumb fucker detector must be broken. I could give a shit whether you give good head! All you are is another stupid fucking repug. Fuck and suck your repug breathren. (here is a tip: shave your chest)

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 05, 2001.


Nipper, where does a local, state or the federal government get its money? From taxes. The only way for government to "produce" anything is first to take money from individuals or corporations. The only exceptions are when government runs a business like a public utility. For government to hire a person, it has to suck the money out of the private sector first. If it wants to build a building, same. If government reduced taxes by half, do you think people and businesses would just burn the "excess" money? Of course not. This money would go into the machinery of capitalism, funding private consumption, investment and commerce. The more government takes in taxes, the more it suck from the private sector. No private sector equals no government.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.

My dear Lorelei, please do not let my tiny little Tony upset you. He has been sulking ever since I told him that you and I might get together soon. You see sweetheart, poor Tony is not really a ‘man’ in the classic sense. Oh he kinda ‘looks’ like a man, sorta, but the little guy has lost the ability to perform, if you know what I mean. Of course, even when he could muster up an erection it was hardly worth mentioning. Furthermore, his foreplay and oral sexually skills are pathetic at best. When you visit you will see what I’m talking about and please, try not say anything about how short he is…..small mans complex and all. And please, whatever you do, tell him how much you hate Republican’s…that will make him feel better. Like most liberals, little Tony blames the achievers in this world for his own ‘shortcomings’. Did I say ‘shortcomings’? How funny!

-- Mrs. Baloney (at@your.service), June 05, 2001.

Feeding and sheltering the poor, who will inevitably always be among us, is not of "dubious value." Nor is caring for the sick, the elderly and infirm, the disenfranchised, or the forgotten. Such care is not of "dubious value." The health and greater good of a nation is strengthened by the health and basic decencies of life afforded to the poorest, the sick, maimed, mentally ill, etc.

Your argument against Gates Sr. is thin. You say that the Gates family will be a historical remnant in 100 years. So what? Right now, the Gates family and thousands of other rich people in the country are decrying the selfishness and self-interested politics espoused by by those of your ideological class. Your "philosophy" is really a populist ideology that because of its simplistic "solutions" (no taxes) founded on narrow ideological "ideas,", would actually turn America into a third-world country, a place where those who are down on their luck would be turned to the dogs of the street, and where the vast majority of the population would grow more and more destitute while the tiny minority of the very rich would exploit their material and political advantages.

Fortunately for the nation, several extremely intelligent persons of our wealthiest classes today decry your "ideological" notions because they understand such ideas in practice would destory the social fabric of the nation at large. What people of your stripe fail to perceive is that affording basic decencies of life to all of our nation's citizens, finding and maintaining that very basic baseline of human survival, serves ALL Americans.

Government regulations are there to serve the safety of the American population, of ANY income; environmental regulations, even though they're a pain to the corporations that must enforce them, serve ALL Americans in cleaner air and water. Without any such regulations, which are the result of taxation, we would all be at the mercy of mercenary corporate barons who would exploit the environment at the expense of our children's and grandchildren's health. Of course, this is happening today, yet few decry it.

Your ideological politics are so far out of the mainstream that we are now seeing the last breath of such ideas in American politics. People as a whole support environmental regulation, social security, and public health because they realize that such government sponsored programs serve to support us all, no matter what our income. Even the wealthy person will have a better time of it breathing clean air; even the poorest will have a better time of life in American knowing that he or she can find adequate health care.

Yet people like you would destroy whatever progress we have made as a civilized nation and plunge the population in a third-world environment where the weakest and the sickest must "tough it out" on the street. Such a philosophy is anything but noble or decent; it is the philosophy of degredation and violence at the expense of the many to protect the privileges and greed of the few.

Your ideological politics can be easily summed up in one word: greed.

Material selfishness is the mark of ignorance; benevolence is the mark of the enlightened. As the flickering remnant of a failed movement, your ideas may have some little historical interest, but they still smack of the repugnant wholesale abolishment of government at the cost of society at large. Fortunately, even moderate Republicans can now admit that your particular brand of ideological greed is on its last legs and no longer has currency in the nation at large.

-- Self-Interest Is a Bad Idea (for@nation.com), June 05, 2001.


I suddenly feel the need to repost something I wrote over on Poole's board a while back:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004wcH

A little background about me, before I launch…

Reading some of Mr. Poole’s commentary, I’m struck by what we seem to have in common – mainly that I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Bush. I am however, not a southerner. Nor am I a particularly religious guy. Nowadays, I consider myself a moderate… I have too many differences with both sides of the political fence to totally throw in with either.

Up until the last few years, I unapologetically considered myself a liberal. Then I began to waver.

Why? I think it was the nature of the attacks on Newt Gingrich and his newly elected Republican cohorts that began to rub me the wrong way (not that I have any great love for Newt, BTW). I was shocked by the sight of one Democratic leader after another, seemingly in all seriousness, accusing their political opponents of trying to starve children and the elderly, of wanting to kick old and poor people out of their homes… of any number of dastardly aims and desires.

Does anyone, even for a second, believe that anyone, even an evil “conservative”, truly wants to starve children to death? I found it incredible that responsible political representatives would go so far in condemning those who merely disagreed with them on social issues. And it made me begin to examine the philosophy of liberalism at it was being practised at the time. After a while, here’s what I finally came to believe:

1) Liberalism is a philosophy which expects the worst from people.

2) Liberalism assumes that there are some number of people who absolutely can not take care of themselves in today’s world without direct assistance from some outside agency.

3) Liberalism also assumes that most of those people who can take care of themselves are mean-spirited selfish bastards who wouldn’t lift a finger to help anyone but themselves.

4) Therefore, liberalism assumes that the “outside agency” which assists those it deems needy HAS to be the Government. No one else will do it.

And I also came to believe that these tenets of modern liberalism were NOT supported by history – certainly not in this country.

Also, Liberalism, it seemed to me at the time, was beginning to take on a certain attitude of “moral superiority” which really, really put me off. That attitude has now festered into today’s “we are all that stands between the raping and pillaging of the evil conservatives, and the poor and downtrodden” thing we’ve come to know and love on these internet shootin’ matches we’re so addicted to.

Why do I post this? Because when I read things like this:

“You want to know the REAL DIFFERENCE between "liberals" and you people? We care about you. You, OTOH, couldn't give a damn about anyone beyond your little sphere, your "religions" notwithstanding. I'd rather be painted as a liberal, thank you very much. WE are the true "compassionate" ones.”

… I’m reminded of why I began to rethink these things in the first place. And why I’m glad I did.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), April 04, 2001

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 05, 2001.


RC,

Your ideas are unfortunately simplistic. Moderate Republicans, the few that still exist, understand the need for the "greater good." They possess what we might call a "conscience," something that rises beyond simple material self-interest. Yet they certainly cannot, all the same, be classified as "liberals."

Here's some food for thought:

"The apparent opulence and vigor of life in this nation is a mirage. It is actually precariously poised, easily obliterated, slow to recover."

As for "moral superiority," I would sleep better at night knowing that some of my taxes had gone toward making it easier for the 80- year-old-lady next door to me to pay her electricity, gas, and water bills, and to buy some small food rations for her frail existence. This is not really "moral superiority" so much as it is a form of desiring that the social fabric at large be maintained. Why? As I have pointed out, it is in everyone's interest that all of us have at least the basic decencies of life provided to us, even those of us who are mentally ill, crippled, or destitute.

"Remember" would feel better knowing that none of "hard-earned" money had gone toward anything or anyone but himself and his family, including the old lady living next door. As for clean water and clean air, which require government intervention and taxation to maintain, "Remember" would apparently rather let his children suffer the consequences of a horribly degraded environment than pay the pittance required to maintain such decencies.

Perhaps he would even support the privatization of water. I do not doubt that if he could make a profit on oxygen and the air itself, he would certainly try.

This is the difference, RC, in our views; it is not a "moral" difference, it is a philosophical difference.

My philosophy in a nutshell: let the basic decencies of life: clean air, clean water, shelter, food, heat, and basic medical care be afforded to every person on earth; after such baselines have been met and maintained (which would require that we trim our military spending), then let any of you make as much money as you desire; let the free market run rampant, let any of you have at making and collecting and hoarding as much wealth as would make you "happy," as long as the basic social fabric of society is maintained.

-- Rank Self-Interest Is a Bad Idea (for@nation.com), June 05, 2001.


"No private sector equals no government."

The people in Cuba will be surprised to learn they have no government.

I promise you, Remember, that I would like to agree with many of the points you are trying to make, such as that taxes are burdensome, government is inefficient, property should be respected, and so on. But you are couching these points in such extreme rhetoric that you overstep the truth and lose touch with what is real.

For example:

"If government reduced taxes by half, do you think people and businesses would just burn the "excess" money?"

This is valid. I can see your point. But then you turn this clear thinking on its head and suppose in your turn that government does just burn the money it takes in taxes, as if that money just vaporized or was buried in a bunker or dumped in the ocean. How else can I interpret this:

The only way for government to "produce" anything is first to take money from individuals or corporations.

Right. And the only way for a business to "produce" anything is first to spend some money that it got from individuals or corporations. You put "produce" as if somehow tax money was an impotent, sterile kind of money, incapable of "producing" anything, while private money is virile and studly and "produces" like crazy.

I have news for you. It is all just money. It circulates in and out of the private sector and government ceaselessly. Government hires businesses to do things. Businesses pay taxes. Government accountants do the same kind of work private accountants do. They produce the same sorts of output. It is all work, and it is all more or less productive. On average work in the private sector is more productive. But an interstate highway is still wealth, no matter if you try to define it away through word magic.

It is valid to say that government spending is inefficient, or that it places a drag on the private economy, or that you can get a higher multiplier effect from the same money invested by a business. But your assertions such as 'government cannot create wealth' are logically ridiculous and you refuse to even acknowledge this. Instead you seem to think that if you ridicule me, your position becomes stronger.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


"As for "moral superiority," I would sleep better at night knowing that some of my taxes had gone toward making it easier for the 80- year-old-lady next door to me to pay her electricity, gas, and water bills, and to buy some small food rations for her frail existence."

How about this: You have a lot more of that ex-tax money in *your* pocket, and *you* go and donate a portion of that money to a *local* charity which helps out those in need like your neighbor - knowing that the money will be spent 1000 times more efficiently without being strained through various government beauracracies.

""Remember" would feel better knowing that none of "hard-earned" money had gone toward anything or anyone but himself and his family, including the old lady living next door."

"Remember" has said no such thing.

"As for clean water and clean air, which require government intervention and taxation to maintain, "Remember" would apparently rather let his children suffer the consequences of a horribly degraded environment than pay the pittance required to maintain such decencies."

There are ways to attack this problem through the marketplace, you know.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 05, 2001.


Habitat Releases Pioneering Reports on the World's Cities

by Mithre J. Sandrasagra

UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) launched its first reports on urban conditions and trends Monday, stressing that more than 1.2 billion of the world's population of 6 billion live in inadequate housing. "For the first time, the city, rather than the country, is used as the basic unit of analysis," said Secretary General Kofi Annan during the reports' release.

The 126-page 'State of the World's Cities Report 2001' and its 344- page sister publication 'Cities in a Globalizing World: Report on Human Settlements 2001' depart from a longstanding tradition of country-level analysis and instead monitor the realities faced by urban populations.

Pointing out that "the world's urban areas are now home to more than half of humankind - 3 billion people," Annan stressed that "sustainable urban development is one of the most pressing challenges facing the human community in the 21st century."

Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka, Habitat's executive director, said, "Homeless people are living in cardboard boxes on sidewalks of gleaming corporate skyscrapers, whose budgets exceed those of many countries."

The central challenge faced by the global community is how to make both globalisation and urbanisation work for all the world's people, instead of benefitting only a few, added Jay Moore, a principal contributor to the State of World Cities report.

Moore added that liberalised trade and finance, without proper safeguards, have made urban populations everywhere more vulnerable to external shocks. He highlighted the suffering of poor people in Bangkok, Thailand as a result of the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and 1998.

The Report on Human Settlements argues that technology-driven options for growth and development - which spur globalisation - have led to divided cities where the lines of stratification between people, places and groups are becoming more magnified.

Tibaijuka lamented, "We are back to where Charles Dickens was 150 years ago when he wrote 'A Tale of Two Cities'."

Cities are hubs of dynamism, change and opportunity but also places of exploitation, disease and unemployment, Annan said.

The reports cite studies showing that while some groups have improved their housing conditions, a disproportionate share of the world's population - particularly in poor countries - has seen its housing situation deteriorate.

In Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Rwanda, for example, real incomes have fallen, the cost of living has gone up, and the number of poor households has grown, particularly in urban areas.

Municipalities in highly industrialised countries obtain an average of 2,906 dollars per capita in revenue per year. This figure is almost 200 times the average revenue obtained by African municipalities, which raise a meagre 14 dollars per capita per year.

According to Habitat, in Africa, only one-third of all urban households are connected to potable water; in Asia and the Pacific, a mere 38 percent of urban households are connected to a sewerage system; in Europe, the processes of social exclusion marginalise many low income and minority households; and in North America, problems of residential segregation, discrimination in housing markets and affordability persist, particularly in larger cities, despite recent economic growth.

The reports argue that traditional goals of urban planning and development, aimed at supporting cities as engines of economic growth, are too narrow.

"Planners must begin to consider the feminisation as well as the urbanisation of poverty," Tibaijuka said, emphasising that, "the majority of the world's poor are women."

Moore added, "We have not developed institutions well or fast enough to govern or run our cities" even as urban centres have grown to house half the world's population, up from two percent in 1800.

"Policies must focus on capacity building, especially at the local level and in civil society," Tibaijuka concluded.

The Habitat reports were released to coincide with a review, beginning here Wednesday, of progress since the Second World Conference on Human Settlements was held in Istanbul in 1996.

-- "No Taxation!" at Work (stark@realities.com), June 05, 2001.


How about this: You have a lot more of that ex-tax money in *your* pocket, and *you* go and donate a portion of that money to a *local* charity which helps out those in need like your neighbor - knowing that the money will be spent 1000 times more efficiently without being strained through various government beauracracies.

Ah, the G.W. Bush brand of "compassionate conservatism." The problem with this approach, RC, is that it doesn't work. In fact, charitable contributions had been falling in the 1990s even in the midst of unprecedented accumulation of new wealth. The whole point is that basic decencies cannot be privatized or sent to be maintained by "charities" -- unless you favor 19th-century solutions to 21st century realities. "Charities" were all Charles Dickens had in his world; read one of his novels to see the results.

""Remember" would feel better knowing that none of "hard-earned" money had gone toward anything or anyone but himself and his family, including the old lady living next door."

"Remember" has said no such thing.

Remember has made it quite clear that he opposes having his money taxed, which he seems to perceive as a kind of "theft." Of course, perhaps Remember will walk next door and give money to the old lady in need, but if you read over his first essay in this thread, I believe he makes it quite clear he opposes the sort of private charity you believe is a "solution."

There are ways to attack this problem through the marketplace, you know.

Okay. Have at it. Explain them here, and let's see if they could possibly work. I'm open to this notion.

-- Self-Interest Is a Bad Idea (for@nation.com), June 05, 2001.


"Ah, the G.W. Bush brand of "compassionate conservatism." The problem with this approach, RC, is that it doesn't work. In fact, charitable contributions had been falling in the 1990s even in the midst of unprecedented accumulation of new wealth. The whole point is that basic decencies cannot be privatized or sent to be maintained by "charities" -- unless you favor 19th-century solutions to 21st century realities. "Charities" were all Charles Dickens had in his world; read one of his novels to see the results."

Could it be that charitable contributions are falling due to the fact that people assume there's a government agency spending their tax dollars to do what charities *used* to do? And are you really comparing 21st century America to Dickensian England? Come on.

Here's a more recent and applicable example - America got through a great depression without piles of corpses in the street... largely through the efforts of private charities and churches.

"Remember will walk next door and give money to the old lady in need, but if you read over his first essay in this thread, I believe he makes it quite clear he opposes the sort of private charity you believe is a "solution.""

"Remember's" "childrens' story" (not that I'm here to put words in his mouth) opposed charity given to a panhandler with indeterminate problems, without more knowledge of this person's situation. Again, if you give to local charities, the odds are much better that you'll have some idea who's being helped and why.

"There are ways to attack this problem through the marketplace, you know.

Okay. Have at it. Explain them here, and let's see if they could possibly work. I'm open to this notion."

OK, the quick version: I see the Greenpeaces/Sierra Clubs/etc. of the world doing two things, 1) Trying to influence legislation in their favor, and 2) protesting at the sites they are trying to influence. I don't see either of these things as being terribly effective.

So, how 'bout trying 3) Buying TV/Radio/Print ads saying "Company X is pouring Y amount of crap into the air/water/etc... in these levels... here's what this crap can do to you *at that level*... here's the products Company X makes... we suggest you don't buy the products until they cut down on the crap..."

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 05, 2001.


The people in Cuba fared much better when a private sector existed.

I am not contending the government achieves zero results with a few trillion dollars. The allocation of resources by the government is not market driven. The free market allocates resources more efficiently than even the most gifted bureaucrat. This has been proven time after time in socialist and communist economies.

Businesses do not expropriate resources. They sell goods and services. The transactions are voluntary. Unsuccessful businesses are subect to failure.

Government takes resources. This taking is not voluntary. Unsuccessful government programs exist even when achieving no results and often long after the alleged purpose has been accomplished. (Rural electrification comes to mind.) Government does not produce "wealth." It redistributes wealth from the private sector (unless its actually running something like a utility). Redistribution is not the same as production.

To the other gadfly, as for "morality," I'll worry about mine and let you worry about yours. If you sleep better giving your money to your neighbors, by all means. Don't use my money to ease your conscience.

I agree with RC that there are market mechanisms that far more efficiently protect the environment. Charging for the "right" to pollute is more effective than regulations.

As what doesn't work, the old style welfare state clearly has been a failure as has the expensive "war on poverty." In short, we have spent a great deal of taxpayer money to satisfy the moral impulses of the liberals while accomplishing very little. The welfare reform so feared by advocates of the parental state has been very effective.

I am not opposed to private charities. I support personal freedom and personal responsibility. I oppose government charity, particularly having witnessed the results of the state's beneficence on the Native Americans and African Americans. To satisfy your conscience, you would create serfs utterly dependent on the government's largess. You fail to see the destructive effects of this.

While you decry self interest, it creates the opportunity to have this discussion, and it creates the ample governmental budgets you seem intent on redistributing. If you don't like self-interest, join the people's revolution in Cuba. Found out how economics works in a command economy.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 06, 2001.


In the pursuit of a rhetorical and philosophical advantage you made some remarks that were so grossly oversimplified that they were factually wrong.

You said "government does not create wealth". Now you're trying to scuff over the tracks with your foot while saying, "I am not contending the government achieves zero results with a few trillion dollars." But that is literally what you were contending.

You said, "No private sector equals no government." Now you say, "The people in Cuba fared much better when they had a private sector."

As an aside, there actually is good evidence that the people in Cuba have improved many elements of their material quality of life under Castro - and without the artificial embargo they would have fared much better than that. But that is beside the point. I am no great admirer of Cuba, for the same reason I was no admirer of the Shah of Iran: any country that needs a secret police force to maintain power is not worthy of admiration. What matters is that you are disowning your earlier statements by pretending you didn't make them.

You are conspicuously avoiding saying the simple words, "I was wrong. You were right." Try it. It actually raises you in the estimate of most folks.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 06, 2001.


I take it you have never studied economics, Nipper. Government does not create wealth. Government spends money it has taken from someone else. This is not creation of wealth, it is the expenditure of wealth created elsewhere. Sure, government does get something for the trillions it spends. This is pretty obvious.

Let me make this simple because I think your lack of education in economics is proving a disability. Let's say I own a widget factory. I hire workers, bring in raw materials and build widgets. I invest in new widget-making technologies. Ultimately, I sell the widgets in the open market. If I am successful, the sale of the widgets will cover my costs and leave a tidy profit. This is how wealth is created, through the combination of labor, capital, investment and entrepreneurship. Wealth is created as resources of value x become goods with value y. Government expropriates a portion of this created wealth and transfer it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The "no private sector" was an overstatement. It is possible to run a command economy with no "official" private sector. Let me suggest the "illegal" activities in totalitarian/communist regimes are often the most viable part of the economy. I'd like to see your citations on the standard of living in Cuba... and I'd prefer to avoid propaganda from Castro or anyone teaching at UMass Amherst. Oh, and don't forget to include the subsidies providing to Cuba by the FSU. Funny how Cuba really hit the skids when the FSU folded and stopped sending money. Oh, you can broaden your example to North Korea. Compare the two Koreas and you have my point in a nutshell.

Finally, I am not concerned about what you or anyone else thinks of me. I notice that you have dodged my most substantive points, whining instead about my rhetorical style. Let's just take your low opinion of me as read and move into real discussion. How about proving that you have a moral right to seize my resources and the segue neatly into proving government social welfare programs are effective. Take your time.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 07, 2001.


"Finally, I am not concerned about what you or anyone else thinks of me."

What a relief to get that out into the open. Your mother, your father, your pastor, your boss, your friends be damned! Full speed ahead! "Remember the old forum" uber alles!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 07, 2001.


Remember:

I'm curious about your feelings on school taxes [typically placed on property you own, or, in some cases, showing up as additional fees in rent.] Do you feel that the people who have never procreated should pay these school taxes? Do you think that people whose children are long past the school age should pay? What are your thoughts on the additional fees that the phone companies charge for various programs that aid folks who need special services, or the fees that the electric companies charge for the same purpose?

You seem to feel that anyone/everyone is exempt from paying for services that they don't use, so should shut-ins be exempt from paying for road repairs? Where do you draw the line on such things?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001.


Well, Nipper, it seems we have finally reached the point where you have nothing to add to a discussion on economics aside from your personal opinion of me. Still waiting on the cite for the glorious standard of living enjoyed by modern Cuba.

You misread me, Anita. Taxes are an expropriation of wealth from the private sector. A portion of my earnings are taken to satisfy the altruistic impulses of people like Nipper. I think many government programs are well intentioned, but often do more harm than good.

Let us consider the example of the public school system. I agree that a well educated citizenry is important for stable, productive society. Unfortunately, public education fails miserably in this regard. Why? The reasons are complex, but I think the major reason is that public education is unresponsive to the needs of its customers. The local school system is a monolith immune to change. Many counties spend over 50 cents of every tax dollar on public education. For this handsome sum, society receives waves of high school graduates who are barely literate and generally incapable of logic, critical thinking or analysis.

The best way to change this calcified system is to give power over to parents. Give every child a educational voucher worth x amount and allow the parent to choose any school, public or private. This simple change would force schools to compete for students. Ironically, this supposed "conservative" proposal would be of the greatest benefit to minority inner-city youth who suffer from the worst public schools.

Now, more directly to your question, there are many public goods that give me no "direct" benefit. As a matter of general principle, I do not have a problem sharing the expense of core government services including basic education. I am not an anarchist and understand the need for limited government. On the other hand, I think government should be limited and local as possible. Furthermore, I think direct users of public goods should pay the freight whenever possible. Personally, I think "toll" roads and dedicated fuel taxes are sound ideas. If I walk to work every day (or am I shut-in), why should I pay for a billion-dollar freeway? User fees for public goods like national parks make sense. Perhaps you are familiar with the tragedy of the commons? Finally, like school vouchers, I think government should use the power of the marketplace to improve the value of public goods like education. It works quite well for our university system.

Where we will disagree, Anita, is in what we define as a "core" service. I do not think it's government's responsibility to put a chicken in every pot. I think private charities do a splendid job of providing services to the needy. As an aside, the "fuel fund" run by most power utilities is voluntary.

There is no free lunch, Anita. I think the fairest society is when the general burden of taxation is kept to an absolute minimum. I think cigarette taxes should pay for every penny of the social cost created by cigarette use, no more and no less. I think alcohol taxes should pay for the social costs of alcohol. This way the cost of use (or abuse) is distributed to the users. If I don't smoke or drink, I am not paying for someone else's choices. A tax on a good to cover external costs is not expropriation, it is making the market price the "real" price. It gives me the choice to pay or not pay the levy.

I hope this makes my position a bit more clear.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 07, 2001.


Remember: I appreciate your taking the time to make your position more clear.

Regarding schools, I was educated in public schools and found the education to be excellent until I went to High School. This was in Chicago, BTW, at a time that Chicago schools were considered the worst in the nation. I had some catching up to do when I entered a private University. I've used both the private and public systems for my three kids. I wasn't pleased with the education my oldest was getting for my $4-5,000/year at a private school during her second grade term. I transferred her to a public school in my neighborhood that was MUCH better in terms of teachers knowing their stuff and relating the information to the students. I stuck with the public schools after that, although the high-schools in Texas were as bad [IMO] as the high-schools in Chicago when *I* went there, so I sent my younger two back to Illinois to get an education [outside of the Chicago system, but still in a public school].

Neither I, nor the kids' father were displeased with the results of the public system in Illinois. I don't know if this is the same thread wherein Flint talked about teaching to the three levels of students, but yearly test results determined where my children fit. Honors classes were offered [much like they were for me], and where one of my children scored off the chart on the yearly tests, he/she was bussed to the local college for classes.

I think it's a misnomer to suggest that public school education [overall] provides an education inferior to private institutions. Different areas of the country have different programs, and...yes...it's up to the parent to discern if his/her child is being served.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001.


"I take it you have never studied economics, Nipper."

I see. The problem must be my ignorance. No flies on you.

"Government does not create wealth. Government spends money it has taken from someone else. This is not creation of wealth, it is the expenditure of wealth created elsewhere."

All I see here is an assertion masquerading as an explantion. At the heart of this assertion is the assertion that the mere act of spending money can never create "wealth". You believe that the source of the money is all that determines whether spending it creates "wealth".

All that is necessary to reach this conclusion is to perform a thought experiment. Name any thing that can be purchased with money: raw materials, labor, intellectual property, real property, banking services, financial obligations... anything at all. Combine them in any way you see fit.

For example, I imagine that money can be used to purchase a parcel of land, build a factory on it, fill the factory with machinery, hire people to run the machinery, and purchase raw materials that the factory turns into goods - let's say the factory makes shoes. At the end of a year, the factory has made 500,000 pairs of shoes. Now, using your extensive economic knowledge, are these shoes a form of "wealth"?

Based on what you have said, it would be impossible to answer this in the affirmative or the negative. The shoes are obviously shoes. The factory stands there on the land. The workers were paid. But we can't yet say if any wealth was created.

If your assertion is correct, a visitor from Mars (who cannot understand any language on earth) could survey the entire USA, look at our factories, farms, roads, cars, schools, stores, ships, bridges, banks and museums, and go home to Mars. The other Martians ask him: is the USA a wealthy country? He answers, impossible to say. I saw nothing there that could not be publically financed, so it might just be an illusion of wealth I saw.

You begin to see what the problem is here? You are simply redefining wealth to fit your ideology. There is no reality to your definition. Anything could be wealth. Anything could not be wealth. It all depends.

But then, I expect you have studied much economics and put your finger on where I am going wrong.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 07, 2001.


The only consistent problem I have with your writing, Anita, is that you frame global issues through the narrow glass of your personal experiences. The inadequacy of public school education is easily demonstrated. In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, fifty percent of high school graduates required some form of remedial education when admitted to the community college system. We are not talking Harvard. If you look at the research, our public schools are failing, though I am delighted to hear your personal experiences were not uniformly negative.

I am trying to be patient here, Nipper, but you are asking me to cover two semesters of Econ 101 for your benefit.

"Government's role in the economy was laid out a decade ago in a wonderful essay, "The Poverty of Nations," by the late economist Karl Brunner (1985). A person in an economy can use resources in only one of four basic endeavors: he can produce, trade, influence the political process to redirect greater resources to his advantage, or protect himself against the wealth-redistributing efforts of others.

In the first two uses--production and trade--the total welfare generated by the economy increases. In the language of economists, these activities represent a positive-sum (win–win) gain. However, the latter two efforts--redirecting the flow of resources and protecting against the wealth-redistributing efforts of others--are zero-sum, or even negative-sum, games. They add no value, waste time and effort, and thus generate a lower standard of living for people as resources are directed away from production and trade. Government institutions--laws, rules, regulations, and the judicial system-- influence private decisions to allocate resources among these uses.

The influence of government as a wealth-redistributing body is well known. Government wealth redistribution by way of explicit or implicit taxation lowers the incentive to create and accumulate wealth, thereby lowering the potential productive power of the economic system. But governments also promote production and trade, because they are assignors and protectors of property rights, and provide for the enforcement of private contracts. These are wealth- enhancing activities that help the productive capacity of an economy to blossom. Thus, governments have two necessarily contradictory and coexisting modes: "the protective mode" and "the redistributive mode." Jobs Creation and Government Policy by Jerry L. Jordan

Government can positively influence wealth creation by enforcing property rights, protecting the nation from foreign invasion and generally maintaining order. This is not the same as creating wealth.

Money is a store of value and medium of exchange. The government can print currency. It can print lots of currency like the Weimar Republic did in the 1920s. The "value" of the money, however, is determined by the strength of the underlying economy. The U.S. learned this. Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "Not worth a Continental." The simple act of printing money is not creating wealth, nor is the act of spending money.

Where does the government collect most of its revenue? Taxes. Taxes take money from the private sector. Let's consider the example of entitlements. The government gives money to people it thinks need assistance. This is a transfer of wealth, not creation.

Your shoe factory offers many examples of wealth. The intellectual property of your shoe design is a form of wealth. Your building is a form of wealth. The skilled labor is a form of wealth. Your products are a form of wealth. Your management ability is a form of wealth. The combination of labor, capital, investment and entrepreneurship results in an outcome greater than the sum of the inputs. Value is added. Wealth is created.

The real wealth creation happens when people buy your shoes, when your workers spend their wages and when you reinvest your profits. The creation of wealth is a cycle of production and consumption. We use money as a yardstick and calculate measures like GDP and GNP. We adjust for inflation or the reduced purchasing power of money.

The wealth of the U.S. has increased mightily over the past 200+ years, primarily because we are a capitalist society.

As for your game playing about the definition of wealth, please. You can define wealth as sunshine on your shoulder, the wind in your hair and a perfect sunset. Very poetic, but not relevant from an economic standpoint.

Still waiting on those great reports from Cuba.

-- remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 07, 2001.


"Still waiting on those great reports from Cuba."

And wait you will. They were a side excursion away from my point. However, I see you find it to be a helpful distraction to call attention away from my main points. After all we all know that Cuba (boo! hiss!) is evil and the rules require that it cannot be mentioned in American political discourse without reviling it.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, namely how can it be true that "no private sector equals no government", while Cuba apparently has no private sector and yet beyond a doubt has a government?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 07, 2001.


"primarily because we are a capitalist society"

Hahahahaa simpletons are muliplying!

Why don't you call it what it is dude? DOG eat DOG.

-- (too@funny.haha), June 07, 2001.


Remember wrote: Your shoe factory offers many examples of wealth. The intellectual property of your shoe design is a form of wealth. Your building is a form of wealth. The skilled labor is a form of wealth. Your products are a form of wealth. Your management ability is a form of wealth. The combination of labor, capital, investment and entrepreneurship results in an outcome greater than the sum of the inputs. Value is added. Wealth is created.

Now that is very odd, because in this particular thought experiment the factory was built with tax money. Tax money, as you know, is taken from other people! Tax money, as you know, does not create wealth. If you can agree with anything, surely you can agree about that.

But it is now revealed, to our mutual horror, that none of the things associated with this imagined factory are indeed really "wealth", as you (and economists like you) use the term. This particular factory stands revealed as nothing but (gasp) sham wealth!

Remember wrote: The real wealth creation happens when people buy your shoes, when your workers spend their wages and when you reinvest your profits. The creation of wealth is a cycle of production and consumption.

I have horrible news for you. In this particular thought experiment the government made the shoes and sold them at cost (!) to a private retailer. Because these shoes were made with tax money, the act of selling them created no wealth either.

Clearly, the shoes the retailer bought were not wealth. They were made with tax money and generated no profit. Now I am curious about one detail: did these non-wealth shoes become wealth when the retailer bought them, or when he sold them, or do they remain non-wealth all the way through?

Or let's imagine a slightly different experiment. The shoes were sold to the military and purchased with (gasp) tax money. When the workers spend their wages for making the shoes, would that turn the shoes into wealth, or do they stay in their non-wealth status?

And why does all this remind me of the transubstantiation of wine and wafers into blood and flesh?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 07, 2001.


I got another one for you, Remember the old forum. (You are so fun to tease.) I don't see why you told Anita that the reasons for the failure of public schools are complex. It can really be reduced to a simple syllogism:

1. As you said before, "government does not create wealth."
2. As you said in discussing my imagined shoe factory, knowlege and skill are forms of wealth.*
3. Therefore government schools cannot create knowledge or skill.

* "intellectual property of your shoe design is a form of wealth... skilled labor is a form of wealth... management ability is a form of wealth." I take this quote to say knowledge and skill are forms of wealth.

But what about someone who leaves the armed forces and is given a tax-financed transfer of wealth payment to attend a private college? Obviously, such a tax-funded enterprise could not possibly create wealth, which includes training and knowledge. But the private college that sells its products to that soldier and is generating profits from the soldier's government tax-funded check is creating wealth.

Ah me! So many paradoxes, so little time.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 07, 2001.

This "create wealth" argument reminds me of several places I've worked wherein the IT department was "supported" by the other departments of the company. Services performed by IT were not charged back to other departments, and they felt free to ask for [and GET] the services provided by IT to save money by automating their processes.

Remember: 'Tis true that I can only view the world through my own eyes, but haven't you done the same thing when you mention how you've visited various ethnic groups on the welfare system and determined that the vast majority [based on a sample of X] are/were ripping off the system? Of course there are public schools that graduate students without a clue, just as there are welfare recipients who rip off the system. There are students graduating from private schools who ALSO have no clue, and there are folks who never received welfare but rip off the system every chance they get.

I don't think white collar crime is a function of folks having lived on welfare. I don't think there's a difference between my mom getting social security at 88 and a child getting fed a free lunch at a school program. IMO, BOTH are living off taxpayer money, and I tease my mom all the time about being on the dole. Marg will claim that she paid into the system for 25 years and is DUE the money she receives in disability from SS in the form of medicare, but I have also paid into the system for 25 years [actually more], and if *I* become disabled, it's my tough luck. The child [of course] has never worked, so he/she MUST be considered a leach, or the parents considered a leach....SOMEONE must be considered a leach, or the resentment over feeding a child that's hungry has no place to go.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001.


LN, you must have lived through the depression. Did you enjoy all those government programs and handouts? That created lots of wealth in your eyes, didn't it?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 08, 2001.

You seem so intent on not understanding my points, Nipper, that this seems a rather profound waste of time. You seem to have great trouble distinguishing between the verbs "create" and "transfer."

Let's make this as simple as possible. You and I are on an otherwise deserted island. I decide to pass my time by making sandals. The investment of my labor, raw resources and ingenuity CREATES a product. On the other side of the island, you declare yourself the government. You want to provide me with educational services, military protection, etc. But who will feed, and clothe and shelter you while you perform these grand tasks? Government is not comprised of volunteers. Some poor soul must provide you with resources. You pass a tax on me (the private sector) to provide you with food, clothing and shelter so you can go about creating a Great Society. Let's say you have a machine gun pointed at me, so I agree. This is a TRANSFER of wealth. Every noble task you attempt is being underwritten by me. And you wonder why I'm not grateful.

Part of my sentence of living on the island is attending your school. If you actually can find something of value to teach me, this will enhance the stock of human capital on the island. The teaching, however, is funded by the taking of my wealth. The created wealth of my labor is transfered back to me in the form of education.

Now, if you read through my writings on this post you'll see I acknowledge the example of a public utility (like a water system) that can operate like a business. You are too busy being glib (and distorting my argument) to allow me this significant example. The USPS takes advantage of a convenient monopoly to run a shoddy business.

The only way government can build a shoe factory, educate a child or anything else is to take money from the private sector. This is moving wealth from "A" to "B," a zero-sum game. Let's give you a government at ground zero, no resources. How exactly does your government "create" wealth? How do you fund your noble causes? Where do you get the money you need to save us from ourselves?

Government can do some important tasks that preserve the ability for the private sector to create wealth. The private sector, however, is the engine of the economy. Without the private sector, you have the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and the other great experiments in collectivism. Oh, by the way, the private sector (or black market) was the most productive sector in these totalitarian regimes.

Unless you have some breaking data on the great life in Cuba, I think we've beaten this horse to death.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 08, 2001.


"Without the private sector, you have the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and the other great experiments in collectivism. Oh, by the way, the private sector (or black market) was the most productive sector in these totalitarian regimes."

If you had simply said this in the first place, I would have agreed with you, because this is (to the best of my knowledge) true.

However, in the quote above you contradict your earlier statement that "no private sector equals no government". Try as you might, there is no denying that "the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and the other great experiments in collectivism" were and are governments. Bad governments, perhaps, evil, godless, nasty, no good governments, but governments.

It would be fruitless and pointless for you to argue that the entire Soviet armed forces, collective farms, factories, public works, schools, space program, legendary layers upon layers of bureaucracy and so on were all financed by the production of black marketeers selling Levis they bought off tourists.

As for your patient explanation about the desert island economy, the whole crux of your argument is here:

"The teaching, however, is funded by the taking of my wealth. The created wealth of my labor is transfered back to me in the form of education."

This model appears flawed to me, in that it assumes the act of transmitting your sandals back to you in the form of education was a zero-sum enterprise. I would argue that it is clearly a value-added enterprise. This flaw in your model as the same flaw that leads people to say that an arbitrager does not add value. The value added by the arbitrager is knowledge. He makes the market function more efficiently.

The teacher who accepts sandals in exchange for knowledge also makes the economy function more efficiently. Along the way wealth is created.

Let's look again at your desert island example. Let's presume I had not 'formed a government' and funded the school from 'taxation', but had instead performed a simple market exchange of my knowledge for your sandals. You still make as many sandals as you did before, you still pay me the same number of sandals to teach you as you did before. The entire transaction is the same as before. Only now, because I am operating as a free market entity you would presumably feel able to identify the value I added to the process and acknowledge the wealth I created.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 08, 2001.


Do you want to have a discussion or bandy about semantics.

A gang of men holding hostages might consitute a "government." I see little difference between a totalitarian regime and a group of semi- organized bandits, although the regimes often have their own stationary and niftier titles like President-for-Life.

To allow for the possibility of discussion, let me modify my statement. No private sector equals no legitimate government.

We are also bumping heads over the definition of wealth. You seem to feel that if we give the government a million dollars and we get back a toilet seat, wealth has been "created." If we use your definitions, this is correct. A toilet seat is a wonderful product and has some finite value. We can say the government manufactured this toilet seat and therefore "created" the wealth.

My definitions are different (and this makes it unlikely we will be able to agree). When government takes the million dollars and give us a $600 toilet seat, I see no value added. In fact, I see the waste of about $999,985.00. I think the private sector could produce a perfectly good toilet seat for about $15.00.

You see a "value added" in the education provided by the public sector. I see the government paying more than the private sector for an inferior commodity. The value "in" is taxes. The value "out" is education. You see public education "adding" value. Sure, public education is a value, per se, but is the value greater than the input of public dollars? I don't think so. I think a privatized education system would offer equal or greater "value" for less cost. Profit, Nipper, is evidence of a value added in a competitive market.

I will not argue a person engaged in arbitrage does not add value. On the contrary, his (or her) existence is a matter of private contract. If there was no value in his services, the market would eliminate his position. How? Firms that did not use an arbitrager would pass on lower prices and gain market share.

Your analysis of the island barter transaction is flawed. As a government, you took my resources. This was not voluntary nor was it based on the needs of the market. As the government you TOOK my resources and then GAVE me education whether I wanted it or not. As two private parties, our exchange was voluntary. As a government, you gave me education at the "price" you selected (in terms of taxation). As a private, voluntary exchange, the price was freely negotiated.

As before, it is not that government does NOTHING with trillions of dollars. In fact, they do LESS than what they take in because of the inherent inefficiencies and lack of market feedback. Free markets create wealth. As a GENERAL RULE, the government is supported by the wealth created in the private sector.

Government can imitate business, usually by declaring a legal monopoly by the USPS. Operating a business, the USPS provides goods and services, but less than if the same entity existed in a competitive marketplace. (Why not break tradition and at least recognize the public utility example I made a couple of dozen posts up.)

-- remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001.


If you had originally said that "no private sector equals no legitimate government", then it would have been apparent that you were speaking idealogically. The addition of the word "legitimate" makes it a self-enforcing statement. What defines "legitimacy"? The presence of a private sector! Who can argue with that?

The essence of your analysis of how "governments do not create wealth is here (I trust the transposition of the sentences doesn't harm their meaning):

"As the government you TOOK my resources and then GAVE me education whether I wanted it or not. [] This was not voluntary nor was it based on the needs of the market."

Again, this gets back to the necessity of investigating the source of the funds before it can be determined whether the result of the transaction is wealth or not-wealth. Now you insist that the source of the funds be voluntarily supplied before the result of the transaction can be defined as wealth.

This again leads to evident absurdity. By this definition, a slave cannot create "wealth" under any circumstances. I could elaborate on this illustration, but I think that I have already said enough to demolish your argument.

As for your illustration about toilet seats for "a million dollars", I think the actual figure Senator Proxmire cited was $600. But it doesn't matter. Let's go with the million. I would be happy to stipulate that, in that instance wealth was destroyed. Recently, we've seen dot-com companies that raised millions in an IPO and went bankrupt without ever earning a dime in profits. Would you agree that in that instance wealth was also destroyed?

Now, if your one cited instance can prove that "governments do not create wealth", my one cited instance equally proves "the free market does not create wealth".

As for your saying:

"Sure, public education is a value, per se, but is the value greater than the input of public dollars? I don't think so. I think a privatized education system would offer equal or greater "value" for less cost."

All this addresses is the question of efficiency at creating wealth. You are as much as admitting that, if public schools can be less efficient at creating wealth, then by definition, they are creating wealth, albeit less efficiently.

If you had only said in the beginning that "governments are not as efficient at creating wealth as the private sector AS A GENERAL RULE", we could have avoided all this, because (as I pointed out before) this is a justifiable position and one I agree with. But then, I don't believe that creating wealth at the highest possible level of efficiency to the exclusion of all other considerations is the highest imaginable good. YMMV.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 11, 2001.


The legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed. Individuals confer power to government, not vice versa.

We are going around in circles. If government takes 10 pounds of sand and returns one pound of sand, you claim the government has "created" sand. On one level, I can understand your point but you seem to be missing mine. Wealth creation is when the private sector gathers 10 pounds of sand and "creates" fifteen pounds of sand. The five pounds of sand is the "created" wealth.

How is this possible? The profit motive. The private sector combines resources with a value "x" and creates products or services with a value of "y." The positive difference is "created" wealth. Government takes "y" resources from the private sector and converts them into goods or services with a value of "x." This is a reduction in total wealth. There are two major types of losses. First, the government is not responsive to the marketplace and lacks the efficiency gained by competition. Second, the government removes resources that might otherwise be used by the private sector. When government borrows money, it crowds out private borrowing.

As for the dot coms, individual private sector firms can destroy wealth. A corrupt CEO can run to the Grand Cayman islands with the company's money. A company can make poor business decisions, bad investments, etc. The capitalist system is designed to weed these firms out. The private sector creates wealth because the system is self correcting. Bad firms fail (at least when government does not bail them out). In the aggregrate, the private sector generates income.

Now, let's return to the profit motive. The reasons businesses exist is to make a profit. If I can make a widget for "a" and sell it for a higher amount, "b," the difference is my profit. Now, how many examples can you give me where government takes "a" and generates a return of greater value? If you have any examples, these are great candidates for privitization. If a profit motive exists, why not let the private sector do the work? Why have less efficient government entities do what the private sector can do better?

Ultimately, what government does is paid for by the private sector in the form of taxes, user fees, etc. Your standard of wealth creation is that we get something from our ten pounds of sand. Let's use your habit of taking things to an extreme. What happens when government takes an ever increasing bite? At some point, the productive power of the private sector can no longer counter-balance the inefficient resource transfer of the public sector. This is why I think command economies (including one's based on slavery) eventually wind down. It's like a car that gets 1000 miles for every tank of gas but you wait 1050 miles between every fill up.

Creation of wealth through the private sector has allowed America to fund its many misguided efforts at social policy. Most third world countries, including Cuba, do not have this luxury. A market economy is driven by the personal "considerations" of millions of consumers. In America, you worry about whether to buy organic coffee, beauty products not test on animals or have your products bagged in paper or plastic.

-- Remembe (the@old.forum.com), June 11, 2001.


Remember, you have done a first class job of explaining the basic concepts of ‘created wealth’. I’m sure you must be frustrated when liberals like LN attempt to distort and manipulate in order to further their far left social agendas.

That is why they must all die while we still have some of our hard earned money left.

-- Liberals (must@all.die), June 11, 2001.


Actually, I thought the general advice was to kill all the lawyers. I don't have a problem with Nipper living, I just don't appreciate underwriting his/her charitable and often destructive impulses with my money. At best, most social programs are unproductive. At worst, they create a culture of dependence and ultimately, a paternalistic state. Hey, I have to wear my seatbelt because the GOVERNMENT says so. The government spends a great deal of time and money adding costs to goods and services to protect idiots from their own stupidity. Of course, to Nipper, this is just creating a different kind of "wealth," no matter what the cost.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001.

"The legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed."

Fine. Since, in your view, "no private sector equals no legitimate government", then you are clearly asserting that without a private sector in the economy no government obtains the consent of the governed. That appears to be a no-sequitor to me.

"If government takes 10 pounds of sand and returns one pound of sand, you claim the government has 'created' sand."

No, I do not make any such claim.

"Wealth creation is when the private sector gathers 10 pounds of sand and 'creates' fifteen pounds of sand. How is this possible? The profit motive."

Ah. Well that settles that. It all makes sense now. Thank you for the most convincing demonstration. I don't think I will be bothering you to answer any more questions. I have run out.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 11, 2001.


Good! Shut the fuck up and get a job! Better yet, kill yourself. Even better yet, take a bunch of liberals with you.

-- All (liberals@must.die), June 11, 2001.

All liberals@must.die

Oh, no! We're all gonna die!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 11, 2001.


A pleasant thought.

-- All ('LIBERALS'@must.die), June 11, 2001.

Nipper, well done and an impressive. Marginalize your opponent's argument by taking it beyond logical extremes, quibble over semantics and avoid even trying to understand the point.

For the two other people left reading this thread, let me finish without bothering you.

Government becomes legitimate when conferred power by the people. If the State owns all property, controls all means of production and has a monopoly on police powers, what do the people have? Legitimate governments arise when people can freely give power... and take it away when the government misbehaves.

Legitimate government exists upon the consent of the people. It's activities are funded by the wealth of the people. How does government pay its bills? Through the taxes it collects. Who pays these taxes? Private individuals and organizations.

From whence does the wealth of individuals come? From private economic activity. At its best, the government can promote the free exchange of ideas, goods and services in the open market. At its worst, it suck horrific amounts of wealth from the private sector and channel this money into unproductive, even destructive, activities.

I know you aren't really reading, Nipper, but show me how the government "created" wealth on the American Indian reservations. I'll tell you one way... the government forgot to outlaw gambling and add federal taxes on the reservations. The success of Indian gambling casinos is an ironic joke on the Great White Father's government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a poster child on how governments not only destroy wealth, but entire cultures.

I hope, Nipper, that someday the government decides it really wants to help you. And I hope you survive the experience.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 12, 2001.


I'm not sure this has made its way to this forum but I've seen it a number of places now:

If you think the Bush tax cut plan is unfair, read this rebuttal to the Attack that appeared in the Sunday, March 4 Chicago Tribune. By the way, the ratios are roughly accurate. 10% of the wage earners pay about 60% of the taxes collected, 30% pay 37%, and 20% pay 4%. The rest, of course, pay nothing!

A TAX CUT PARABLE Every night,10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling very generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59. He realized that he was forced to pay for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men. The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80. This clearly would not affect the first four men. They still ate for free. The fifth person decided to forgo his $1 contribution while the sixth pitched in $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid $5. The eighth man paid $9. The ninth man paid $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52.

Outside of the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I only got $1 out of the $20, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in. "Yeah! I only got $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get $7 back when I only got $2?" The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20. Where is our share?" The nine angry men carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 12, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ