wrote in message
...
On Nov 11, 3:18 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
What I had in mind at the time was
something that Warren Buffet said a decade or so ago, about the unfairness
and distortion that results from wealthy people leaving their money to
their
kids.

--
Ed Huntress

It is not that bad. Some of the kids do well building on what they
received, for example Howard Hughes. Or they do stupid things and end
up not so well off.

Sure. Some of them are raised and taught to manage that money, and do quite
well for everyone concerned. It isn't a question of whether they can handle
it (although some clearly can't). The point is that it's money they didn't
earn -- heaps of it -- and we're listening to Howard and Tom pat each other
on the back for being against "unearned" money. I was curious about how Tom
felt about inheritance taxes, and if they only applied to people whose
politics he doesn't like. If one of George Soros's five children gets a few
billion and is a liberal, and creates political committees and publications
that support his side, will Tom favor or oppose all of that "unearned" money
being handed to them?

My point is that most of these ideological ideas, run through the deductive
logic machine to their conclusions about many, if not most issues, turn to
crap when they confront their own contradictions. A logician would say it's
because ideologies are always based on false premises (usually because
they're incomplete, but there are many other reasons). Any system that's
based on false premises is likely to contain absurd conclusions and
contradictions. And the logician would be dead-on.

What the hell, it is the parents money. They ought to be able to do
what they want to with it. It isn't my money or the governments
money, so why should I be able to tell them what to do with it.

You're describing an aristocracy of wealth. I'm not going to argue the
point, only identify what it is you're favoring. That may work with a Roman
Republic, but not with a Madisonian one.


There is a lot of unfairness and distortion with just the ordinary
middle class in the US. Why should we have a much better life than
say those in Bangladesh?

Because we want it and can have it, if we use our heads. If we don't, it's
because we screwed up.

Being born in the US makes one wealthy
compared to those in third world countries. It isn't fair that some
people are born in third world countries. It isn't fair that some
people are born to rich parents. There is a lot of unfairness
around. One just has to play the hand one is dealt.

We deal our own hands, because we can change anything we like about our
government. If we wind up living like people in the third world and we don't
do something about it, we have no one to blame but ourselves -- because we
have everything anyone could need to make it much better.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 11, 10:37*pm, "Ed Huntress" The point is that it's money they
didn't
earn -- heaps of it --

My point was it was money that the parents did earn. And they should
be able to do what they want with the money they earned. Create
charities, support politics, give to universities, whatever.
Including giving it to perfect strangers or heaven forbid their own
kids.



What the hell, it is the parents money. *They ought to be able to do
what they want to with it. *It isn't my money or the governments
money, so why should I be able to tell them what to do with it.

You're describing an aristocracy of wealth. I'm not going to argue the
point, only identify what it is you're favoring. That may work with a Roman
Republic, but not with a Madisonian one.


Not arguing a aristocracy of wealth. Arguing that if someone earns
money, they should be able to do whatever they want to with the money
( as long is it is legal, no hiring hit men ).


There is a lot of unfairness and distortion with just the ordinary
middle class in the US. *Why should we have a much better life than
say those in Bangladesh?

Because we want it and can have it, if we use our heads. If we don't, it's
because we screwed up.

Being born in the US makes one wealthy
compared to those in third world countries. *It isn't fair that some
people are born in third world countries. *It isn't fair that some
people are born to rich parents. *There is a lot of unfairness
around. *One just has to play the hand one is dealt.

We deal our own hands, because we can change anything we like about our
government. If we wind up living like people in the third world and we don't
do something about it, we have no one to blame but ourselves -- because we
have everything anyone could need to make it much better.

--
Ed Huntress

If you had been born in a third world country, you would not be saying
that " we deal our own hands ". You and I were just very lucky to be
born in the US. We did not do anything to earn out good fortune. My
point is that if you believe everyone should have to make it on their
own, then everyone should start from the same starting place. No "
well I was born in the US and therefore I deserve ............" No if
you want everyone to start equal, you need to make that everyone. Not
just those in the US.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Nov 11, 10:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" The point is that it's money they
didn't
earn -- heaps of it --

My point was it was money that the parents did earn. And they should
be able to do what they want with the money they earned. Create
charities, support politics, give to universities, whatever.
Including giving it to perfect strangers or heaven forbid their own
kids.

So, if you feel that way, then what philosophical objection could there be
to *other* people getting money for nothing? Is it all a matter of choosing
one's parents carefully?

As a practical matter, you can say that you object if the money is coming
from your taxes, and you don't object if it comes from some individual's
wealth. That's fine from the funding end -- but the money is the same color
from the receiving end.

So it isn't *getting* money for nothing that's being objected to. It's where
the money comes from. That's not at all what Harold has been objecting to
all these years, however. He objects if he thinks they're overpaid. But was
George Soros fairly paid when he bet against the Bank of England and made
something like $8 billion in less than two weeks? Did he "earn" that money?

What the hell, it is the parents money. They ought to be able to do
what they want to with it. It isn't my money or the governments
money, so why should I be able to tell them what to do with it.

You're describing an aristocracy of wealth. I'm not going to argue the
point, only identify what it is you're favoring. That may work with a
Roman
Republic, but not with a Madisonian one.


Not arguing a aristocracy of wealth. Arguing that if someone earns
money, they should be able to do whatever they want to with the money
( as long is it is legal, no hiring hit men ).

If they have tons of it and if they throw extraordinary weight around
because of it, you are indeed arguing for an aristocracy of wealth -- a
business oligarchy, to be more specific.



There is a lot of unfairness and distortion with just the ordinary
middle class in the US. Why should we have a much better life than
say those in Bangladesh?

Because we want it and can have it, if we use our heads. If we don't, it's
because we screwed up.

Being born in the US makes one wealthy
compared to those in third world countries. It isn't fair that some
people are born in third world countries. It isn't fair that some
people are born to rich parents. There is a lot of unfairness
around. One just has to play the hand one is dealt.

We deal our own hands, because we can change anything we like about our
government. If we wind up living like people in the third world and we
don't
do something about it, we have no one to blame but ourselves -- because we
have everything anyone could need to make it much better.

--
Ed Huntress

If you had been born in a third world country, you would not be saying
that " we deal our own hands ".

Of course. That's my point -- we have the resources, the education, and the
form of government to avoid the roadblocks and traps those people face. More
than any people in history, we're in control of our own destiny.

You and I were just very lucky to be
born in the US. We did not do anything to earn out good fortune.

Agreed. It was great good luck for us. If we don't take advantage of it, we
have no one to blame but ourselves.

My
point is that if you believe everyone should have to make it on their
own, then everyone should start from the same starting place. No "
well I was born in the US and therefore I deserve ............" No if
you want everyone to start equal, you need to make that everyone. Not
just those in the US.

First of all, I neither want nor expect everyone to start equal. I'm more
concerned about the *power* that great inherited wealth confers. And a good
system of fair opportunity -- particularly of education -- is enough
fairness to satisfy my beliefs about what we need to have a successful and
tolerably fair society. I would limit inheritance of personal wealth that
encourages monopolies, oligopolies, and oligarchic structures of wealthy
businessmen who dictate legislation. And we have quite a lot of that right
now.

The danger we face now, as we did during the age of the Robber Barons, is
complete manipulation of the economy and of politics by a handful of
business oligarchs. We busted it up with a series of progressive legislation
that sparked the greatest economic growth in the history of the world. I
don't want to see that oligarchy re-emerge. A great division of incomes -- a
high GINI Index -- is a warning sign that we're headed that way. Wall
Street's ability to give the whole country the finger and to give themselves
60% bonus increases is another warning sign. They now have emerging
oligopolistic power. Iggy probably can tell us what that's like.

To get back around to my original point, these two philosophical points --
that people should earn what they get and that children of wealthy parents
are entitled to whatever wealth their parents want to confer upon them --
are flatly contradictory. Yet they're both typically believed by
self-described conservatives. Any ideology is rife with such contradictions;
the two poles of American politics are such a ridiculous grab-bag of
unrelated, random principles that they're almost comical when you try to
figure out where they come from.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 12, 1:48*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Nov 11, 10:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" *The point is that it's money they
didn't

earn -- heaps of it --
My point was it was money that the parents did earn. *And they should
be able to do what they want with the money they earned. *Create
charities, support politics, give to universities, whatever.
Including giving it to perfect strangers or heaven forbid their own
kids.

So, if you feel that way, then what philosophical objection could there be
to *other* people getting money for nothing? Is it all a matter of choosing
one's parents carefully?

I have no objection to people getting money for nothing.
I do have an objection to people getting money and not being able to
spend or save it as they want to.

As a practical matter, you can say that you object if the money is coming
from your taxes, and you don't object if it comes from some individual's
wealth. That's fine from the funding end -- but the money is the same color
from the receiving end.

I do object to people not letting me spend my money as I want to spend
it. Taking money from me by taxes does not let me spend it as I want
to. Granted the government needs some money.

So it isn't *getting* money for nothing that's being objected to. It's where
the money comes from. That's not at all what Harold has been objecting to
all these years, however. He objects if he thinks they're overpaid. But was
George Soros fairly paid when he bet against the Bank of England and made
something like $8 billion in less than two weeks? Did he "earn" that money?

I do not care. George Soros did not do anything illegal. Do not care
if he "earned" the money. So he got $8 billion. Good on him.

What the hell, it is the parents money. They ought to be able to do
what they want to with it. It isn't my money or the governments
money, so why should I be able to tell them what to do with it.

You're describing an aristocracy of wealth. I'm not going to argue the
point, only identify what it is you're favoring. That may work with a
Roman
Republic, but not with a Madisonian one.

Not arguing a aristocracy of wealth. *Arguing that if someone earns
money, they should be able to do whatever they want to with the money
( as long is it is legal, no hiring hit men ).

If they have tons of it and if they throw extraordinary weight around
because of it, you are indeed arguing for an aristocracy of wealth -- a
business oligarchy, to be more specific.


Disagree. There are always going to be people that have extraordinary
weight they can throw away. But the people are going to change.
Right now you have Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, Obama,
None of them are old money. Wealth will only last a few
generations.


There is a lot of unfairness and distortion with just the ordinary
middle class in the US. Why should we have a much better life than
say those in Bangladesh?

Because we want it and can have it, if we use our heads. If we don't, it's
because we screwed up.

Being born in the US makes one wealthy
compared to those in third world countries. It isn't fair that some
people are born in third world countries. It isn't fair that some
people are born to rich parents. There is a lot of unfairness
around. One just has to play the hand one is dealt.

We deal our own hands, because we can change anything we like about our
government. If we wind up living like people in the third world and we
don't
do something about it, we have no one to blame but ourselves -- because we
have everything anyone could need to make it much better.

--
Ed Huntress
If you had been born in a third world country, you would not be saying
that " we deal our own hands ".

Of course. That's my point -- we have the resources, the education, and the
form of government to avoid the roadblocks and traps those people face. More
than any people in history, we're in control of our own destiny.

You and I were just very lucky to be
born in the US. *We did not do anything to earn out good fortune.

Agreed. It was great good luck for us. If we don't take advantage of it, we
have no one to blame but ourselves.

My
point is that if you believe everyone should have to make it on their
own, then everyone should start from the same starting place. *No "
well I was born in the US and therefore I deserve ............" *No if
you want everyone to start equal, you need to make that everyone. *Not
just those in the US.

First of all, I neither want nor expect everyone to start equal. I'm more
concerned about the *power* that great inherited wealth confers.

Why are you concerned? Some of the power will produce great
benefits. People that inherit a lot of money usually do some good
things. And if they don't, so what.

And a good
system of fair opportunity -- particularly of education -- is enough
fairness to satisfy my beliefs about what we need to have a successful and
tolerably fair society. I would limit inheritance of personal wealth that
encourages monopolies, oligopolies, and oligarchic structures of wealthy
businessmen who dictate legislation. And we have quite a lot of that right
now.

The danger we face now, as we did during the age of the Robber Barons, is
complete manipulation of the economy and of politics by a handful of
business oligarchs. We busted it up with a series of progressive legislation
that sparked the greatest economic growth in the history of the world. I
don't want to see that oligarchy re-emerge. A great division of incomes -- a
high GINI Index -- is a warning sign that we're headed that way. Wall
Street's ability to give the whole country the finger and to give themselves
60% bonus increases is another warning sign. They now have emerging
oligopolistic power. Iggy probably can tell us what that's like.

You really believe people should earn what they get? Then by all means
we should outlaw all the state lotteries. Close all the casinos.
Maybe stop grants from being made. Establish a limit on what sports
figures can make. Maybe not permit anyone to endorse anything. Limit
how much someone like Bill Gates can make. Maybe create a government
bureau to determine how much every individual should make. Outlaw
patents.

And lets figure out what is a wealthy parent. Maybe you should not be
able to give your son anything to pay for his education. It is unfair
for you to do that. You probably are in the top 10% of the income
earners. Certainly in the top 5% if you include the whole world.
From a philosophical viewpoint , you need to include the whole earth.
Think how unfair it is for children of less wealthy parents.


To get back around to my original point, these two philosophical points -- *
that people should earn what they get and that children of wealthy parents
are entitled to whatever wealth their parents want to confer upon them -- *
are flatly contradictory. Yet they're both typically believed by
self-described conservatives. Any ideology is rife with such contradictions;
the two poles of American politics are such a ridiculous grab-bag of
unrelated, random principles that they're almost comical when you try to
figure out where they come from.

My point is that people ought to be able to get as much money as they
can as long as they do not commit illegal acts. And they should be
able to do whatever they want with the money. Even give it to their
kids, if that is their desire. The kids are entitled to nothing. If
their wealthy parents do not wish to give them money, they get zilch.

Dan

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 1:48 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

I don't think we'll agree on anything here, Dan, and these issues aren't
subject to a simple resolution by examining a few facts. But one thing stuck
out here, and it's the most distinct point of disagreement:


First of all, I neither want nor expect everyone to start equal. I'm more
concerned about the *power* that great inherited wealth confers.

Why are you concerned? Some of the power will produce great
benefits. People that inherit a lot of money usually do some good
things. And if they don't, so what.

The "so what" is that you no longer have a government of, by, and for the
people when a country is run by a business oligarchy. Russia has had that in
recent years; so have many other countries. The oligarchies run the
countries for themselves alone.

I have no interest in living in such a place. Much of the energy and sense
of freedom in this country come from a sense that we the people are, or can
be if we get our act together, in charge of the government. Oligarchies
breed cynicism and eventually destroy important freedoms.

That's not for me. If you're willing to let business run government, we
aren't going to have much in common about anything.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 12, 5:21*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


The "so what" is that you no longer have a government of, by, and for the
people when a country is run by a business oligarchy. Russia has had that in
recent years; so have many other countries. The oligarchies run the
countries for themselves alone.

I have no interest in living in such a place. Much of the energy and sense
of freedom in this country come from a sense that we the people are, or can
be if we get our act together, in charge of the government. Oligarchies
breed cynicism and eventually destroy important freedoms.

That's not for me. If you're willing to let business run government, we
aren't going to have much in common about anything.

--
Ed Huntress

I am for letting people do what they want with their own money. You
seem to be for not letting people do what they want with their own
property.

You claim to be a conservative, but want to control what people do
with their property. You seem to believe that the government can
spend money better than individuals.

I do not think we currently live in a oligarchy, and that we have much
more to fear from trying to prevent a oligarchy based on wealth from
forming, than from letting people control their own lives. What we
have now is the threat of a political oligarchy. Many in the
government are sons and daughters of politicians.

You seem to be jealous of wealth and afraid of wealthy people. I
believe that wealthy people have done a lot of good. They seem to
know that they can not take their money with them when they die and
end up doing more good with their money than the federal government
would do.

I have no interest in living in a place where the people get their act
together as you say and redistribute the wealth in the name of
fairness. I believe the energy and sense of freedom comes from
letting people decide what they want to do as individuals. Not from
voting in politicians that promise that the government will take care
of everyone.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 5:21 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


The "so what" is that you no longer have a government of, by, and for the
people when a country is run by a business oligarchy. Russia has had that
in
recent years; so have many other countries. The oligarchies run the
countries for themselves alone.

I have no interest in living in such a place. Much of the energy and sense
of freedom in this country come from a sense that we the people are, or
can
be if we get our act together, in charge of the government. Oligarchies
breed cynicism and eventually destroy important freedoms.

That's not for me. If you're willing to let business run government, we
aren't going to have much in common about anything.

--
Ed Huntress

I am for letting people do what they want with their own money. You
seem to be for not letting people do what they want with their own
property.

This is where I believe that false premises and ideologies rear their heads.
You could take your statement and draw from it the conclusion that people
could start their own navies and attack foreign countries; build a
whorehouse in the middle of your neighborhood and play loud music all night
long through their open windows; stockpile enough explosives in their
basement to blow your neighborhood to kingdom come, in anticipation of an
impending social revolution.

I do think there are limits to what people can do with their property. One
of them is manipulating the political process. John McCain was dead right
about the need for limits on campaign contributions from powerful financial
interests. In the name of "free speech" (I think that's the justification
they used), they can overwhelm communications channels and the opportunities
for political speech, turning this country into an oligarchy of financial
power. That's pretty much what the health care insurance industry is doing
right now -- or they're trying to. And Wall Street has done an admirable job
of coercing the government just by the threat of creating a financial
meltdown. Money is overwhelming power, or it can be, if it isn't regulated.

You claim to be a conservative, but want to control what people do
with their property. You seem to believe that the government can
spend money better than individuals.

I'm a pragmatist, an anti-ideologue, and basically a centrist. The
conservative part is the side that wants to preserve principles and
institutions that support our democratic republic. The progressive part is
the side that wants to destroy those institutions that undermine it -- like
K Street lobbyists and unregulated financial institutions that are "too big
to fail." If they're too big to fail, they're too big to live.

I do not think we currently live in a oligarchy, and that we have much
more to fear from trying to prevent a oligarchy based on wealth from
forming, than from letting people control their own lives.

See, to me, you've just contradicted yourself. If you let wealth run
roughshod, people lose some important controls over their own lives. That's
what oligarchy is all about.

What we
have now is the threat of a political oligarchy. Many in the
government are sons and daughters of politicians.

But what they do, the legislation they enact and the policies they pursue,
are very dependent upon what K Street tells them to -- or they won't get
re-elected.

You seem to be jealous of wealth and afraid of wealthy people.

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, that wealth often tries to perpetuate itself
at our expense. The current dons of Wall Street and some other industries
fit perfectly into his definition of "the malefactors of great wealth." They
can be a real danger to the republic.

believe that wealthy people have done a lot of good. They seem to
know that they can not take their money with them when they die and
end up doing more good with their money than the federal government
would do.

I'm sure they approve of your assessment. g


I have no interest in living in a place where the people get their act
together as you say and redistribute the wealth in the name of
fairness.

Those are two unrelated subjects which you've combined into a non sequitur.

I believe the energy and sense of freedom comes from
letting people decide what they want to do as individuals.

....until they're politically overpowered by the sugar lobby, which adds $18
billion/year to our bills; or the military/industrial lobby, which wants to
build machines to fight the last war, at our expense; or the health care
lobby, which cares only about increasing their revenue (the premiums we
pay); etc., etc.

Not from
voting in politicians that promise that the government will take care
of everyone.

As Ronald Reagan's budget director learned years ago, the (mostly
Democratic) politicians who promise to take care of everyone can be
controlled (he called them a "weak force"). The ones who are taking care of
business and financial lobbies (mostly Republicans) are out of control and,
presently, uncontrollable. He called them the "strong force" in politics.
They're the ones who bust our budgets and who cede control of government to
their lobbies.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


The "so what" is that you no longer have a government of, by, and for the
people when a country is run by a business oligarchy. Russia has had that in
recent years; so have many other countries. The oligarchies run the
countries for themselves alone.

I have no interest in living in such a place. Much of the energy and sense
of freedom in this country come from a sense that we the people are, or can
be if we get our act together, in charge of the government. Oligarchies
breed cynicism and eventually destroy important freedoms.

That's not for me. If you're willing to let business run government, we
aren't going to have much in common about anything.


You know, a good argument could be made that this is exactly where we are today.
AND why our financial systems are in the shape they are...

On Nov 12, 3:59*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



This is where I believe that false premises and ideologies rear their heads.
You could take your statement and draw from it the conclusion that people
could start their own navies and attack foreign countries; build a
whorehouse in the middle of your neighborhood and play loud music all night
long through their open windows; stockpile enough explosives in their
basement to blow your neighborhood to kingdom come, in anticipation of an
impending social revolution.

This is the last post by me on this subject. You are impossible to
reason with.

You can not take my statement and say that people could build their
own navies and attack other countries. I was very clear about people
having to be legal. All of the things you list are illegal. Like I
say, you are impossible to reason with.


I do think there are limits to what people can do with their property. One
of them is manipulating the political process. John McCain was dead right
about the need for limits on campaign contributions from powerful financial
interests. In the name of "free speech" (I think that's the justification
they used), they can overwhelm communications channels and the opportunities
for political speech, turning this country into an oligarchy of financial
power. That's pretty much what the health care insurance industry is doing
right now -- or they're trying to. And Wall Street has done an admirable job
of coercing the government just by the threat of creating a financial
meltdown. Money is overwhelming power, or it can be, if it isn't regulated.

You claim to be a conservative, but want to control what people do
with their property. *You seem to believe that the government can
spend money better than individuals.

I'm a pragmatist, an anti-ideologue, and basically a centrist. The
conservative part is the side that wants to preserve principles and
institutions that support our democratic republic. The progressive part is
the side that wants to destroy those institutions that undermine it -- like
K Street lobbyists and unregulated financial institutions that are "too big
to fail." If they're too big to fail, they're too big to live.

You are a centrist in a Democratic state. I see you as a liberal, but
less liberal than many in your state.

I do not think we currently live in a oligarchy, and that we have much
more to fear from trying to prevent a oligarchy based on wealth from
forming, than from letting people control their own lives.

See, to me, you've just contradicted yourself. If you let wealth run
roughshod, people lose some important controls over their own lives. That's
what oligarchy is all about.

I did not contradict myself. I said we are not now an oligarchy. And
that doing things to make sure we do not become an oligarchy is worse
than leaving things alone. Again you are impossible to reason with as
you ignore what people say. You assume that what they are saying is
something other than what they actually say.

What we
have now is the threat of a political oligarchy. *Many in the
government are sons and daughters of politicians.

But what they do, the legislation they enact and the policies they pursue,
are very dependent upon what K Street tells them to -- or they won't get
re-elected.

You seem to be jealous of wealth and afraid of wealthy people.

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, that wealth often tries to perpetuate itself
at our expense. The current dons of Wall Street and some other industries
fit perfectly into his definition of "the malefactors of great wealth." They
can be a real danger to the republic.

You statement that " they can be a real danger to the public " shows
that you are afraid of wealthy people.


believe that wealthy people have done a lot of good. *They seem to
know that they can not take their money with them when they die and
end up doing more good with their money than the federal government
would do.

I'm sure they approve of your assessment. g



I have no interest in living in a place where the people get their act
together as you say and redistribute the wealth in the name of
fairness.

Those are two unrelated subjects which you've combined into a non sequitur.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 3:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



This is where I believe that false premises and ideologies rear their
heads.
You could take your statement and draw from it the conclusion that people
could start their own navies and attack foreign countries; build a
whorehouse in the middle of your neighborhood and play loud music all
night
long through their open windows; stockpile enough explosives in their
basement to blow your neighborhood to kingdom come, in anticipation of an
impending social revolution.

This is the last post by me on this subject. You are impossible to
reason with.

Not at all. I just think you've let theories take hold of reason. There's a
benign version of "letting people use their money as they see fit," and the
there's the contrasting reality of how money corrupts politics and
economics. You seem to ignore the latter, and they can do more damage than
you seem to acknowledge.

If the subject was just people and the economy in general, I'd say you're
mostly right. But the subject is the ill effects of "malefactors of great
wealth," and you seem to ignore a lot of very painful US history with that
subject.


You can not take my statement and say that people could build their
own navies and attack other countries. I was very clear about people
having to be legal. All of the things you list are illegal. Like I
say, you are impossible to reason with.

What's "illegal" depends on what Congress enacts. Right now it's legal to
sell a security that hedges against the failure of a business -- and to sell
that same security to ten or a hundred different people. Forty years ago,
that would have landed you in prison for fraud. (Thank you, Phil Gramm. Your
legacy is secure in the annals of financial lunacy.)

So you can talk about principles, or you can talk about laws, but if you
limit yourself to what's legal, the question arises about what your
principles tell you should be illegal. You expressed the *principle* of
letting people do what they want with their money. Today's prohibiting law
may be tomorrow's meal ticket for someone. Laws may come and laws may go,
but in relation to your principle of letting people do what they want with
their money, which policy -- allowing the sale of only one credit default
swap on one original debt, or allowing the sale of multiple swaps on the
same debt -- reflects your principle? That's the issue.

If you limit your principle to things that are legal, then my point is that
some financial transactions and some campaign financing should be illegal.
Would that solve it for you? Or are you telling us what you think should be
legal and illegal? That's the question that I think is essential to the
position you've taken here. So we differ about what should be illegal.


I do think there are limits to what people can do with their property. One
of them is manipulating the political process. John McCain was dead right
about the need for limits on campaign contributions from powerful
financial
interests. In the name of "free speech" (I think that's the justification
they used), they can overwhelm communications channels and the
opportunities
for political speech, turning this country into an oligarchy of financial
power. That's pretty much what the health care insurance industry is doing
right now -- or they're trying to. And Wall Street has done an admirable
job
of coercing the government just by the threat of creating a financial
meltdown. Money is overwhelming power, or it can be, if it isn't
regulated.

You claim to be a conservative, but want to control what people do
with their property. You seem to believe that the government can
spend money better than individuals.

I'm a pragmatist, an anti-ideologue, and basically a centrist. The
conservative part is the side that wants to preserve principles and
institutions that support our democratic republic. The progressive part is
the side that wants to destroy those institutions that undermine it --
like
K Street lobbyists and unregulated financial institutions that are "too
big
to fail." If they're too big to fail, they're too big to live.

You are a centrist in a Democratic state. I see you as a liberal, but
less liberal than many in your state.

No, I'm a centrist according to national polls. I tend to fall right in the
middle on most determing issues. Here in NJ, I'm to the right of center. I
was a delegate to my county Republican convention some years ago.


I do not think we currently live in a oligarchy, and that we have much
more to fear from trying to prevent a oligarchy based on wealth from
forming, than from letting people control their own lives.

See, to me, you've just contradicted yourself. If you let wealth run
roughshod, people lose some important controls over their own lives.
That's
what oligarchy is all about.

I did not contradict myself. I said we are not now an oligarchy. And
that doing things to make sure we do not become an oligarchy is worse
than leaving things alone. Again you are impossible to reason with as
you ignore what people say. You assume that what they are saying is
something other than what they actually say.

No. Your contradiction is in saying that preventing an an oligarchy from
forming interferes with people controlling their own lives. I'm saying that
preventing oligarchies is *essential* to allowing people to control their
own lives.


What we
have now is the threat of a political oligarchy. Many in the
government are sons and daughters of politicians.

But what they do, the legislation they enact and the policies they pursue,
are very dependent upon what K Street tells them to -- or they won't get
re-elected.

You seem to be jealous of wealth and afraid of wealthy people.

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, that wealth often tries to perpetuate itself
at our expense. The current dons of Wall Street and some other industries
fit perfectly into his definition of "the malefactors of great wealth."
They
can be a real danger to the republic.

You statement that " they can be a real danger to the public " shows
that you are afraid of wealthy people.

I didn't say "the public." I said "the republic." Great wealth, when it's
applied to influencing government (as it often, perhaps usually does), tends
to corrupt our form of government. That's what Teddy Roosevelt recognized a
century ago.


believe that wealthy people have done a lot of good. They seem to
know that they can not take their money with them when they die and
end up doing more good with their money than the federal government
would do.

I'm sure they approve of your assessment. g



I have no interest in living in a place where the people get their act
together as you say and redistribute the wealth in the name of
fairness.

Those are two unrelated subjects which you've combined into a non
sequitur.

Those are not unrelated subjects. You advocated having people get
their act together and have the government do something to prevent
oligarchies.

That has nothing to do with "redistributing wealth." That's the
non-sequitur. Limiting the influence of wealth on politics does not require
redistribution. Basically, it requires campaign finance reform.

Sure sounds like you want the government to take peoples money away
from them to me.

Not me. I just want megabuck lobbies to get the hell out of financing
political campaigns, both directly with campaign contributions, and
indirectly, with Harry and Louise propaganda.


I believe the energy and sense of freedom comes from
letting people decide what they want to do as individuals.

...until they're politically overpowered by the sugar lobby, which adds
$18
billion/year to our bills; or the military/industrial lobby, which wants
to
build machines to fight the last war, at our expense; or the health care
lobby, which cares only about increasing their revenue (the premiums we
pay); etc., etc.


How does letting people decide what they want to do as individuals
have something to do with the Sugar Lobby? You are lost here. I see
no connection at all. Just something to distract attention.

No, YOU are lost there. You also clipped out the quote I was responding to.
Let me re-insert it:

I believe the energy and sense of freedom comes from
letting people decide what they want to do as individuals.

Now does it make more sense? When you let the sugar lobby strong-arm
Congress to re-institute a subsidy that was stopped in 1979, for the purpose
of increasing the profits of the sugar industry by raising prices and
simultaneously blocking foreign competition, you've just taken billions of
dollars out of consumers' pockets. That's some of their energy you've just
forfeited by allowing the lobby to use its money to influence politics. And,
in your own terms, some of people's freedom went with it.

Not from
voting in politicians that promise that the government will take care
of everyone.

As Ronald Reagan's budget director learned years ago, the (mostly
Democratic) politicians who promise to take care of everyone can be
controlled (he called them a "weak force"). The ones who are taking care
of
business and financial lobbies (mostly Republicans) are out of control
and,
presently, uncontrollable. He called them the "strong force" in politics.
They're the ones who bust our budgets and who cede control of government
to
their lobbies.

Again business lobbies are unrelated to letting individuals control
what they do with their money such as giving it to their kids or
choosing the charities that the money goes to. Again impossible to
reason with. When losing an argument, just throw in anything .

When losing an argument, you ignore the full implications of what you're
saying. g The "control" I was talking about was limitations on the
political power that wealthy individuals and institutions can exercise by
means of their great wealth. You morphed that into the widows and orphans
fund. What you're now saying has nothing to do with the point I made, and
which you supposedly addressed.

Any good pedant should have caught that. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Dan



--
Ed Huntress

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip-

To get back around to my original point, these two philosophical
points -- that people should earn what they get and that children of
wealthy parents are entitled to whatever wealth their parents want to
confer upon them -- are flatly contradictory. Yet they're both typically
believed by self-described conservatives. Any ideology is rife with such
contradictions; the two poles of American politics are such a ridiculous
grab-bag of unrelated, random principles that they're almost comical when
you try to figure out where they come from.


That's nonsense. Unearned money that comes from some faceless entity
equates to money lost by one or many individuals, unlike money that was
*earned* (assuming it was) by one's parents. To compare one with the
other is just another of the less than honest ways greedy people justify
stealing.

Economically, that's a distinction without a difference. Both sources are,
supposedly, the result of "productive" earning. In one case the giving is
voluntary. In the other, it's the result of taxation and redistribution.
There is a big sociological difference but not a bit of difference in the
economic flow of money. Both amount to a redistribution of wealth that,
originally, was earned, and in the end, is passed on to someone who didn't
earn it. The economic question is whether there's enough wealth being
produced by the system as a whole to support all of it. At the moment, not.


One of the things you're conveniently overlooking in this conversation is
the fact that taxing the hell out of productive people, giving to those
that can, but won't, support themselves, is a great incentive for those
without pride to get on the band wagon for *free lunches*.

I don't recall that you addressed the tax/redistribute issue before when
we've had this conversation. In those conversations you've been focused on
people who were being paid more than you think they're worth -- by means of
union pressure or other pressures. That's one issue. Welfare is another
issue.

My reason for bringing it up had to do with the focus on people getting
money they didn't earn. People who get big inheritances are in that same
category. Warren Buffet put his finger on the social distortions that
inheriting great wealth may produce. He's not the only very wealthy person
who sees it that way, either.

No one should be penalized for doing the right thing----and that includes
recycling. One pays more to recycle their refuse than those that send
it to the land fill? How smart is that? Shouldn't the guy that is doing
the right thing be the one reaping a reward, assuming one is available?

Apparently, the economics aren't working in the favor of recycling in your
area. So you have to consider the real costs of filling your landfill. There
may be external costs (toxic leakage into the water table; a lack of
capacity; etc.) that aren't showing up right now as direct money costs. I
don't know your situation. Here in NJ, we're flat running out of landfill
space, so recycling is necessary to allow *some* room for non-recyclables --
or we're going to face horrendous costs in the near future.

We'd have to know more about your case.


The free money concept is driving this nation to total destruction. When
individuals (all of them) learn that money must be earned, perhaps we will
get back to a sense of fairness and honesty. Fat chance, when it has
become fashionable to grab (unearned) money from others and run like hell.

I don't disagree with that, but the real problem, IMO, is the enormous
disparity in incomes for different kinds of work. Those aren't unions or the
government dictating multi-million-dollar bonuses to financial traders. And
there is nothing in that work that can be valued at 100 times the value of,
say, managing a manufacturing business.


Recent graduates of economics have such a distorted view of what
constitutes earning money that it should be criminally prosecutable.
That, of course, isn't going to happen----because we have the same
criminal mind set running the show. Sort of the fox watching the hen
house.

Right now it's the free market that's producing the most egregious examples,
like the one above. Economists have nothing to do with it. Those are
business decisions made by business managers.

We will, slowly, revert back to times when a select few controlled the
masses, if by no other means, taxation. We're screwed. We just
don't know enough to fall down.

I'll take doomsayers seriously when I see their predictions come true. How
many decades have you been predicting this? g

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 12, 9:17*am, " wrote:

You seem to be jealous of wealth and afraid of wealthy people. *I
believe that wealthy people have done a lot of good. *They seem to
know that they can not take their money with them when they die and
end up doing more good with their money than the federal government
would do.

And that is why they've spent so much time, money and effort fighting
inheritance taxes. Right?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip-

To get back around to my original point, these two philosophical
points -- that people should earn what they get and that children of
wealthy parents are entitled to whatever wealth their parents want to
confer upon them -- are flatly contradictory. Yet they're both
typically believed by self-described conservatives. Any ideology is rife
with such contradictions; the two poles of American politics are such a
ridiculous grab-bag of unrelated, random principles that they're almost
comical when you try to figure out where they come from.


That's nonsense. Unearned money that comes from some faceless entity
equates to money lost by one or many individuals, unlike money that was
*earned* (assuming it was) by one's parents. To compare one with the
other is just another of the less than honest ways greedy people justify
stealing.

Economically, that's a distinction without a difference. Both sources are,
supposedly, the result of "productive" earning. In one case the giving is
voluntary. In the other, it's the result of taxation and redistribution.
There is a big sociological difference but not a bit of difference in the
economic flow of money.

Yes, a big difference. A very big difference. One of them is nothing short
of extortion. Pay the tab, or go to jail. But then, I'm not surprised.
Everything in our life inevitably ends up in the hands of government. How
many folks own their own land? Miss paying taxes and it's gone. Even
whey you're disabled.

Both amount to a redistribution of wealth that,
originally, was earned, and in the end, is passed on to someone who didn't
earn it. The economic question is whether there's enough wealth being
produced by the system as a whole to support all of it. At the moment,
not.

While it's true that it is passed on, it is often passed on at the wish of
the rightful owner. It is his/hers to do with as they please. I have a
bit of a problem with government insuring that it can't happen. We have
a case, locally, that is a good example. Our phone company was sold because
the founder, and his two sons, who ran the business for many years, along
with the help of their sons, couldn't pass ownership to youngest generation.
Taxation was in the millions--so the business had to be sold. The sons,
ages around 40-50 years, had worked in the business since being children.
It was just as much theirs as it was their parents, but the only way they
could claim title was to pay the millions of dollars in tax, which they
didn't have. I hardly call that a fair deal. Government profits from the
loss of the family, who had paid countless dollars in taxes for years.



One of the things you're conveniently overlooking in this conversation is
the fact that taxing the hell out of productive people, giving to those
that can, but won't, support themselves, is a great incentive for those
without pride to get on the band wagon for *free lunches*.

I don't recall that you addressed the tax/redistribute issue before when
we've had this conversation. In those conversations you've been focused on
people who were being paid more than you think they're worth -- by means
of union pressure or other pressures. That's one issue. Welfare is another
issue.

My reason for bringing it up had to do with the focus on people getting
money they didn't earn. People who get big inheritances are in that same
category. Warren Buffet put his finger on the social distortions that
inheriting great wealth may produce. He's not the only very wealthy person
who sees it that way, either.

Listen, if I had Warren Buffets wealth, I'd likely feel fine about seeing
others taxed all to hell, too. No sweat off my brow-----and I have plenty
left after taxes, so it doesn't matter to me. I wonder how many people
that must choose between paying taxes and buying food would share that
attitude?

The thing that troubles me the most is that it is a punitive system. Those
that do get taxed to death, while those that won't get a free ride. It
makes no difference to me that they are in a union or not, nor if it's
welfare for 6th or 7th generation people that have learned to work the
system. People should not be rewarded for non-performance, and those that
do the work shouldn't be penalized for the good they do. It's one of the
worst incentive killers I can think of.


No one should be penalized for doing the right thing----and that includes
recycling. One pays more to recycle their refuse than those that send
it to the land fill? How smart is that? Shouldn't the guy that is doing
the right thing be the one reaping a reward, assuming one is available?

Apparently, the economics aren't working in the favor of recycling in your
area. So you have to consider the real costs of filling your landfill.
There may be external costs (toxic leakage into the water table; a lack of
capacity; etc.) that aren't showing up right now as direct money costs. I
don't know your situation. Here in NJ, we're flat running out of landfill
space, so recycling is necessary to allow *some* room for
non-recyclables -- or we're going to face horrendous costs in the near
future.

We'd have to know more about your case.

Garbage, here, is collected by private industry, hauled to collection
points, then shipped across the mountain by train, where it goes to a
landfill. By contrast, materials that are recycled are sent to
distribution stations, where they have value, yet cost (to the citizen) of
recycling is typically more than sending to the land fill.

I'm totally in favor of recycling, but, once again, why does government
seize the opportunity to tax those that cooperate? In a worst case
scenario, I could see an equal charge, but to contribute to what is a profit
making situation and pay for the right to do so just seems wrong to me, Ed.



The free money concept is driving this nation to total destruction. When
individuals (all of them) learn that money must be earned, perhaps we
will get back to a sense of fairness and honesty. Fat chance, when it
has become fashionable to grab (unearned) money from others and run like
hell.

I don't disagree with that, but the real problem, IMO, is the enormous
disparity in incomes for different kinds of work. Those aren't unions or
the government dictating multi-million-dollar bonuses to financial
traders. And there is nothing in that work that can be valued at 100 times
the value of, say, managing a manufacturing business.

I hope you realize I've never been in favor of management making unearned
money, any more than I'm in favor of some union dolt that can't pour ****
out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. We have had
such bad examples of leadership for so long that many of the people in
question feel it's a right to take too much--after all, it's good for them,
so what's the problem?



Recent graduates of economics have such a distorted view of what
constitutes earning money that it should be criminally prosecutable.
That, of course, isn't going to happen----because we have the same
criminal mind set running the show. Sort of the fox watching the hen
house.

Right now it's the free market that's producing the most egregious
examples, like the one above. Economists have nothing to do with it. Those
are business decisions made by business managers.

The point is that, at least for the past 40 years, the bottom line has
always been more important than earning the bottom line. Sears is a good
example, and a good example of how it can blow up in your face. When they
started treating customers as if they had no value, cutting quality and
raising prices, they lost their market share in droves. Near as I can
tell, it was because of their *clever* business practices, whereby you got
less for more money----and their service, which, at one time, was the best
there was, became extinct. They've paid one hell of a price for their
modern thinking, just as we, as a nation, are paying the price now.

The point is, just because a huge number of educated people (numbskulls who
don't get it) do the same thing doesn't make it right. Had these people
reigned in their greed and been happy with a modest profit instead of
millions of dollars in unearned income, perhaps, just perhaps, we'd still
have a serious piece of the production market today. All of us can't be
you, Ed. Some of us (myself included) don't have the education or the
ability to be a writer-----we actually turned out a product to earn our
living (not implying that you don't---but we did it on machines---you do it
with your education). Those of us that work with our hands shouldn't
expect to live like attorneys-----otherwise what incentive would there be to
better one's self?

We will, slowly, revert back to times when a select few controlled the
masses, if by no other means, taxation. We're screwed. We just
don't know enough to fall down.

I'll take doomsayers seriously when I see their predictions come true. How
many decades have you been predicting this? g

Likely only for the past few years, but that's because I'm making
observations. Looks to me like I'm right----what with an unemployment
rate that exceeds 10%, and millions of people losing what they have-----all
thanks to demanding unreasonable money, and living beyond their means
(thanks to the unearned money). Given the current set of circumstances,
I'd think you might consider that it's coming true. We've lived beyond our
means and worth, and it's coming home to roost.

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip-

To get back around to my original point, these two philosophical
points -- that people should earn what they get and that children of
wealthy parents are entitled to whatever wealth their parents want to
confer upon them -- are flatly contradictory. Yet they're both
typically believed by self-described conservatives. Any ideology is
rife with such contradictions; the two poles of American politics are
such a ridiculous grab-bag of unrelated, random principles that they're
almost comical when you try to figure out where they come from.


That's nonsense. Unearned money that comes from some faceless entity
equates to money lost by one or many individuals, unlike money that was
*earned* (assuming it was) by one's parents. To compare one with the
other is just another of the less than honest ways greedy people justify
stealing.

Economically, that's a distinction without a difference. Both sources
are, supposedly, the result of "productive" earning. In one case the
giving is voluntary. In the other, it's the result of taxation and
redistribution. There is a big sociological difference but not a bit of
difference in the economic flow of money.

Yes, a big difference. A very big difference. One of them is nothing
short of extortion. Pay the tab, or go to jail. But then, I'm not
surprised. Everything in our life inevitably ends up in the hands of
government. How many folks own their own land? Miss paying taxes and
it's gone. Even whey you're disabled.

Life's a bitch, Harold. Then you die. d8-)


Both amount to a redistribution of wealth that,
originally, was earned, and in the end, is passed on to someone who
didn't earn it. The economic question is whether there's enough wealth
being produced by the system as a whole to support all of it. At the
moment, not.

While it's true that it is passed on, it is often passed on at the wish of
the rightful owner. It is his/hers to do with as they please. I have
a bit of a problem with government insuring that it can't happen.

Ok. Many people do. I do, too. I just have a bigger problem with inherited
aristocracies of wealth.

That is, I would if we had too many of them. And if we followed the path of
decreasing financial regulation that we were on for the past few decades
(and which may continue), we would have a lot of them.

We have a case, locally, that is a good example. Our phone company was
sold because the founder, and his two sons, who ran the business for many
years, along with the help of their sons, couldn't pass ownership to
youngest generation. Taxation was in the millions--so the business had to
be sold. The sons, ages around 40-50 years, had worked in the business
since being children. It was just as much theirs as it was their parents,
but the only way they could claim title was to pay the millions of dollars
in tax, which they didn't have. I hardly call that a fair deal.
Government profits from the loss of the family, who had paid countless
dollars in taxes for years.

And did these business and financial mavens not know this was coming? Did
they not know how to divest direct ownership of the company over time and
retain control of it, as well as most of the dividends? Most wealthy
families do. That's how they operate. It makes me wonder how smart these
phone-company operators really are.



One of the things you're conveniently overlooking in this conversation
is the fact that taxing the hell out of productive people, giving to
those that can, but won't, support themselves, is a great incentive for
those without pride to get on the band wagon for *free lunches*.

I don't recall that you addressed the tax/redistribute issue before when
we've had this conversation. In those conversations you've been focused
on people who were being paid more than you think they're worth -- by
means of union pressure or other pressures. That's one issue. Welfare is
another issue.

My reason for bringing it up had to do with the focus on people getting
money they didn't earn. People who get big inheritances are in that same
category. Warren Buffet put his finger on the social distortions that
inheriting great wealth may produce. He's not the only very wealthy
person who sees it that way, either.

Listen, if I had Warren Buffets wealth, I'd likely feel fine about seeing
others taxed all to hell, too. No sweat off my brow-----and I have plenty
left after taxes, so it doesn't matter to me. I wonder how many people
that must choose between paying taxes and buying food would share that
attitude?

They don't have to worry about it. The inheritance taxes only kick in
significantly when the value of your assets are up in the range where you
have to re-count the zeros to make sure of what you have.

The thing that troubles me the most is that it is a punitive system.
Those that do get taxed to death, while those that won't get a free ride.
It makes no difference to me that they are in a union or not, nor if it's
welfare for 6th or 7th generation people that have learned to work the
system. People should not be rewarded for non-performance, and those
that do the work shouldn't be penalized for the good they do. It's one
of the worst incentive killers I can think of.

Well, I don't think you'll get an argument about that...at least, in
principle.

To make sure we're on track, you'll note that I don't care at all about how
much wealth someone has. More power to them...uh, actually, *not* more power
to them, because it's the POLITICAL POWER that comes with great wealth that
I dislike. That breeds cynicism and a general civic disengagement. We have
enough of that as it is. We can't tolerate much more of it, or we'll be
vulnerable to anyone with the money and the will to take over.

And I agree with you about money-for-nothing being equally destructive. In
fact, as I've said, the reason I became a Republican was because of the
self-destructive nature of our welfare system, particularly back in the '70s
and '80s. It's not perfect but it's much better than it was.

I wasn't even claiming that our present state of affairs is seriously
oligarchic. I just see the potential for it, and a disturbing trend that
results from a lack of regulation in crucial areas. Wealth tends to feed
upon itself, even across generations; wealth can be, and often is, used to
exercise concentrated political power; concentrated political power tends to
control economic decisions only for its own self-interest and
self-perpetuation; citizens who live in countries with oligarchic power tend
to tune out and to lose whatever impulse they have toward civic and
intra-generational responsibility.

That's really all of it.



No one should be penalized for doing the right thing----and that
includes recycling. One pays more to recycle their refuse than those
that send it to the land fill? How smart is that? Shouldn't the guy
that is doing the right thing be the one reaping a reward, assuming one
is available?

Apparently, the economics aren't working in the favor of recycling in
your area. So you have to consider the real costs of filling your
landfill. There may be external costs (toxic leakage into the water
table; a lack of capacity; etc.) that aren't showing up right now as
direct money costs. I don't know your situation. Here in NJ, we're flat
running out of landfill space, so recycling is necessary to allow *some*
room for non-recyclables -- or we're going to face horrendous costs in
the near future.

We'd have to know more about your case.

Garbage, here, is collected by private industry, hauled to collection
points, then shipped across the mountain by train, where it goes to a
landfill. By contrast, materials that are recycled are sent to
distribution stations, where they have value, yet cost (to the citizen)
of recycling is typically more than sending to the land fill.

I'm totally in favor of recycling, but, once again, why does government
seize the opportunity to tax those that cooperate?

It sounds more like it's private industry, rather than government, that's
setting the prices. Right? That's the case here, anyhow.

In a worst case scenario, I could see an equal charge, but to contribute
to what is a profit making situation and pay for the right to do so just
seems wrong to me, Ed.

Well, it's one of those unfortunate situations in which economic costs work
against socially desirable goals. We're loaded with those situations. Most
of them are the result of how markets set prices, which often is in conflict
with social goals and externalized costs. Some are the result of misapplied
taxation. You really have to sort out each one individually.

Right now, our recycling costs here in NJ are through the roof, because
China isn't buying, and US manufacturing companies have a limited appetite
for recycled materials. It's market prices, not taxation, that are calling
the tune here. The only thing from household waste that we can recycle at a
profit here is aluminum. Products made from recycled glass have low value;
those made from recycled plastic also tend to have low value, and the
recycling cost tends to be higher than making things from virgin resin. If
China starts paying for this junk again, maybe the relative costs will flip
once again.

When these things are controlled by taxation, it usually (and ideally) is
based on an attempt to capture and to assign externalized costs,
particularly the various forms of pollution and environmental destruction.
This is a bitch -- one of the biggest problems in the practical economics of
government. It's often a necessary thing; much of Lake Superior and many US
rivers have been brought back to life because of it. But like all forms of
taxation, you'll never be able to make it completely fair.




The free money concept is driving this nation to total destruction.
When individuals (all of them) learn that money must be earned, perhaps
we will get back to a sense of fairness and honesty. Fat chance, when
it has become fashionable to grab (unearned) money from others and run
like hell.

I don't disagree with that, but the real problem, IMO, is the enormous
disparity in incomes for different kinds of work. Those aren't unions or
the government dictating multi-million-dollar bonuses to financial
traders. And there is nothing in that work that can be valued at 100
times the value of, say, managing a manufacturing business.

I hope you realize I've never been in favor of management making unearned
money, any more than I'm in favor of some union dolt that can't pour ****
out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. We have had
such bad examples of leadership for so long that many of the people in
question feel it's a right to take too much--after all, it's good for
them, so what's the problem?

Yeah, I realize your position on that. It could get you in a lot of trouble
with the conservatives on this NG, by the way. g




Recent graduates of economics have such a distorted view of what
constitutes earning money that it should be criminally prosecutable.
That, of course, isn't going to happen----because we have the same
criminal mind set running the show. Sort of the fox watching the hen
house.

Right now it's the free market that's producing the most egregious
examples, like the one above. Economists have nothing to do with it.
Those are business decisions made by business managers.

The point is that, at least for the past 40 years, the bottom line has
always been more important than earning the bottom line. Sears is a good
example, and a good example of how it can blow up in your face. When
they started treating customers as if they had no value, cutting quality
and raising prices, they lost their market share in droves. Near as I
can tell, it was because of their *clever* business practices, whereby you
got less for more money----and their service, which, at one time, was the
best there was, became extinct. They've paid one hell of a price for
their modern thinking, just as we, as a nation, are paying the price now.

Yeah, they have. You may remember that my dad was a Sears executive. He got
out in '62, just before things started to go to hell. He burned like a
furnace full of hot coals over what happened after that. But it wasn't
really a lack of caring. It was the market changing under their feet -- big
malls with specialty stores and national brands hit them at one end, while
discount houses hit them at the other. And their practice of capturing good
manufacturers, from Whirlpool to Bush cameras to Scott-A****er outboards,
squeezing the life out of them and then re-branding under their store
brands, wound up biting them in the butt. National brands got going
big-time, and Sears' best products wound up being orphans in the rush for
brand names. Who wants a Homart washer when you can have a Whirlpool for the
same price, after all of the brand-building RCA/Whirlpool did? Who wants a
J.C. Higgins shotgun when you can buy a Hi-Standard? They were the same
shotgun, produced on the same assembly line, but Hi-Standard had the brand
cachet.

It's a long story. History passed Sears Roebuck by. That's really the best
summary of it.


The point is, just because a huge number of educated people (numbskulls
who don't get it) do the same thing doesn't make it right. Had these
people reigned in their greed and been happy with a modest profit instead
of millions of dollars in unearned income, perhaps, just perhaps, we'd
still have a serious piece of the production market today.

Socialist! ggg

All of us can't be you, Ed. Some of us (myself included) don't have the
education or the ability to be a writer-----we actually turned out a
product to earn our living (not implying that you don't---but we did it on
machines---you do it with your education). Those of us that work with
our hands shouldn't expect to live like attorneys-----otherwise what
incentive would there be to better one's self?

I appreciate your frustration, Harold, and much of it is justified. Things
just don't work the way we were taught in school. I find it troublesome,
because our coherence and success as a society depends on that simple
narrative we were taught, even if much of it has always been a myth. Myths
that can survive the messy complexities of life are some of the most
valuable things we have. They provide the motives and the incentives to move
ahead in a positive way.

And that's the basis of my objection to inherited wealth, particularly now
that we have so many multi-millionaires who have so much financial power,
and so much realized and potential political power. They're an affront to
the meritocracy myth, which is one of our strongest and our best, with
enough reality behind it in our history to make it a dominant narrative in
the American experience. I see it in my son's generation; he's an
exceptional student, and, like many of the top students from elite
universities, he has his eye on Wall Street (with a detour coming for Teach
for America -- the kid obviously has complicated affinities g). He knows
that I don't approve even though I'd never say a word to discourage him. But
the brass ring just looks so *good* to those kids.


We will, slowly, revert back to times when a select few controlled the
masses, if by no other means, taxation. We're screwed. We just
don't know enough to fall down.

I'll take doomsayers seriously when I see their predictions come true.
How many decades have you been predicting this? g

Likely only for the past few years, but that's because I'm making
observations. Looks to me like I'm right----what with an unemployment
rate that exceeds 10%, and millions of people losing what they
have-----all thanks to demanding unreasonable money, and living beyond
their means (thanks to the unearned money). Given the current set of
circumstances, I'd think you might consider that it's coming true. We've
lived beyond our means and worth, and it's coming home to roost.

Harold

Well, we've definitely lived beyond our means, but I think it's unlikely
that things will collapse. The underlying productivity and flexibility of
our economy will prevent things from unraveling too far. We'll hit a new
equilibrium -- soon, we can hope -- and we'll rebuild from there. I just
hope we have the sense to put up safeguards to keep finance from creating
even bigger shocks and crashes in the future. Right now, there aren't
sufficient regulations to keep them from doing it again. And they don't
really care, since each of them now will be a little smarter about getting
theirs and getting out before the **** hits the fan.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip--

Well, we've definitely lived beyond our means, but I think it's unlikely
that things will collapse. The underlying productivity and flexibility of
our economy will prevent things from unraveling too far. We'll hit a new
equilibrium -- soon, we can hope -- and we'll rebuild from there. I just
hope we have the sense to put up safeguards to keep finance from creating
even bigger shocks and crashes in the future. Right now, there aren't
sufficient regulations to keep them from doing it again. And they don't
really care, since each of them now will be a little smarter about getting
theirs and getting out before the **** hits the fan.

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks, Ed. Always a pleasure to get your slant on things.

Right now, I'm well over my head. I don't understand politics, and I don't
understand economics---I just have a burr under my saddle that doesn't seem
to go away. Feels good to have my say occasionally, no matter how it may
look to others.

By the way, If I knew your father was associated with Sears, I had forgotten
it completely. I appreciate your comments in that regard. I hadn't
given much thought to what was happening on their side of the issue---all I
could see is how they had changed. It helps to have a better
understanding.

I wonder if you can understand how these issues appear to me? They're
very much black magic as far as I'm concerned----likely a good indication
that I should stick to the only things I understand in the least, which
would be machining and precious metal refining, which treated me exceedingly
well, I might add.

My best, Ed.

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip--

Well, we've definitely lived beyond our means, but I think it's unlikely
that things will collapse. The underlying productivity and flexibility of
our economy will prevent things from unraveling too far. We'll hit a new
equilibrium -- soon, we can hope -- and we'll rebuild from there. I just
hope we have the sense to put up safeguards to keep finance from creating
even bigger shocks and crashes in the future. Right now, there aren't
sufficient regulations to keep them from doing it again. And they don't
really care, since each of them now will be a little smarter about
getting theirs and getting out before the **** hits the fan.

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks, Ed. Always a pleasure to get your slant on things.

Right now, I'm well over my head. I don't understand politics, and I don't
understand economics---I just have a burr under my saddle that doesn't
seem to go away. Feels good to have my say occasionally, no matter how it
may look to others.

I don't disparage gut feelings or burrs under the saddle. g As I grow
older I recognize that they're good indicators that there is something wrong
and that the person feeling them recognizes bad results as well as anyone.
Then comes the hard jobs of figuring out why and what to do about it. But
that's another matter altogether, and we don't always get much light shed on
the subject by the specialists who should know what's happening.


By the way, If I knew your father was associated with Sears, I had
forgotten it completely. I appreciate your comments in that regard.
I hadn't given much thought to what was happening on their side of the
issue---all I could see is how they had changed. It helps to have a
better understanding.

They can be criticized for floundering around, trying to come up with a new
identity and new positioning to deal with the changes in their markets,
which left consumers confused. But it looks to me like their choices were
limited. They don't have the right history or the right identity to try to
out-Wal-Mart Wal-Mart. They aren't Macy's and never will be -- they never
succeeded in building any panache around their fashion and soft goods lines.
Their catalog business died with the proliferation of malls and specialty
stores in the suburbs, not to mention two cars in every driveway and the
popularity among housewives of making shopping a social event. Once they had
to start letting national brands dominate their hard goods, the game was
over, IMO.

Now they have little basis on which to distinguish themselves. Their old
business model has gone the way of the dodo. They're struggling as
second-tier anchor stores in malls, and their old stand-alone stores are
running on fumes, married to K-Mart, of all things. It's very sad to me,
because I grew up with Sears in our living room -- and every other room of
the house. We even had Sears Christmas trees -- real ones. g


I wonder if you can understand how these issues appear to me? They're
very much black magic as far as I'm concerned----likely a good indication
that I should stick to the only things I understand in the least, which
would be machining and precious metal refining, which treated me
exceedingly well, I might add.

I can't put myself in your shoes, Harold, but I can sense your frustration.
I don't know how much better any of us can do than to use our best senses
and sensibilities to choose political leaders and to make personal choices
based on our judgment of character and ability in others. Most of us can
smell a rat; we just have to avoid being too jumpy about drawing
conclusions. I think we all have to do that.


My best, Ed.

Harold

Same to you, Harold.

--
Ed Huntress