Ed,

Forgive me for being just an uneducated bumpkin who never went to college,
but we are looking at different things.

Just to qualify it, I didn't question Jim's intelligence, and certainly
didn't question yours. I don't, however, confuse exposure to education
with intelligence. We simply differ on the value of converting to socialist
programs that cause more harm than good. I do and always have recognized
the impending disaster that was set up when SS was first put in place, for
example. I think it was about 3rd grade when we learned to do the math.

I'm not really upset, just recognize the reality that many of you who are so
fond of socialism don't wish to move where it is stronger. There are many
possibilities in the world.

Public security is bull****! There is no such thing... only the illusion of
security.

George Willer

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Jim,

This is the best place in the world to live, as far as I know. What's
lacking is the will to stick to the principles that made it great. I'd
be
a
lot happier if the socialist wannabe's weren't constantly undermining it
with ideas that have never worked elsewhere long term, and certainly
won't
here. Certainly you're intelligent enough to understand that.

George Willer

Since you're making it a question of Jim's "intelligence," let's see how
good yours is, George.

93% of US economic growth has occurred since the graduated income tax and
Social Security were implemented. Yet, the population in those years only
multiplied by a factor of 2.5.

In fact, the US economy has doubled since 1982, through years of high
welfare payments, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, and so on.

You'll find that, contrary to what you're saying, no country has ever had
much success, long-term or short-term, with *fewer* social programs than
those of the US. Look for it in history. You won't find it.

All of which raises the question, which requires both some intelligence
and
some knowledge to answer: What in the hell are you talking about?

You may find some interesting answers in the recent research that's been
done in the emerging field of the psychology of economics. People are
risk-averse, including Americans. This is documented in investment-pattern
research. Nearly all of us are erroneous investors. We invest
irrationally,
on the conservative side.

Likewise, without safety nets, we don't take as many risks on new
ventures.
You can measure it. Innovation in an economy as a whole is far more
prolific
when just the right amount of security is provided. Not private security.
Public security.

Where risks are great, whether it's because the government is unstable or
because people fear for the consequence of failure, innovation and
investment dry up. People hunker down. They play it safe. They don't
change
jobs, and they don't buy new houses or make other long-term purchases.
Consumption in general slows. With slower consumption, the potential
rewards
of investment, particularly in innovative products or services, decline.
Economies slow down. Employment may or may not decline, but wages are
depressed.

Maintaining strong economic growth is a balancing act. Ideologies on one
side or the other are certain ways to destroy it. You need strong safety
nets, what you may be calling "socialism," or your economy will fizzle. At
the same time, you need really large opportunities to make money with
successful innovations. You need both, in other words. This isn't
speculation. There are dozens of examples from around the world, recent
and
not so recent, that document it.

Now, which "socialist" programs have you upset?

--
Ed Huntress