From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 15:51:27 -0800 (PST)
To: jw250@columbia.edu (Jim Wise)
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.961127135907.23624C-100000@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>
Message-ID: <199611272312.RAA01152@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> > This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
> > country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
> > going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
> Actually, at the risk of interrupting your little diatribe, the average
> welfare recipient is on the dole for under 4 months.  While we're on the
> subject, I may as well point out that the average welfare recipiant is also
> white, lives in a lower-middle class suburban neighborhood, and has two or
> fewer children, but you'd never know it from watching the pols...

     These people are using welfare as it was intended to be used, and while 
they are the vast majority numbers wise, they probably account for less than
40% of expendatures. 

> At any rate, as I mentioned in my last post, you and I are paying three times
> as much to corporate welfare as to personal welfare...

    Which should be eliminated completely and with as much haste as possible. 

> > tax).  And who would get the money?  Those who are producing nothing, giving
> Yes, your taxes do go to those who are producing nothing, namely a bunch of
> CEOs and wealthy shareholders
 
     Wealthy shareholders may not be producers in the strictest sense of the 
word, but without them (or rather without their capital) many businesses ]
would not have been able to grow or get started. They produce _jobs_ which 
is more that can be said of your average machine-punch operator. 

     CEO's produce decesions(sp?). That is sufficient for the shareholders. 
   

> > Bullshit.  See above.
>You keep using that word...  I do not think it means what you think it means...

    You sure do. 

> > You are extremely idealistic.  Try coming back to reality.  Examine the
> > "test cases" for the policies you advocate (and there are plenty of examples
> > of socialist policies both in this country and others) - and realistically
> The only examples of large-scale socialism we have are in extremely statist
> environemnts.  Statism is brutal and innefficient no matter what economic
> system it pays lip service to.

     Socialism can _only_ exist in an extremely statist enviroment.
 
Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com