Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled
by law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and
what is right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...

Two for instances.
Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure
when the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake
45 years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's
45x$6000 or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could
have transferred more than $6000/year?

Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?

In other words, if this is legal, is it right?

This was settled in the late 18th century by the Englishman Adam
Smith in his book "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations." In that
work, he postulated the theory of "The Invisible Hand."

You really should keep up.

Sorry (contrite). Not familiar with the nitty gritty of invisible
hands. Doesn't seem to answer my question. Hints?

Sure. In sum, Smith postulate - and to my mind proved - that when each
person does what is best for himself, the entire community prospers.