On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:12:02AM +0100, Michael Graham said: > > Then you admit, if you compare two developed countries in the more > socialist country the poor would be better off? Not in the long term, no. They trade the hope of escaping poverty for a more comfortable time spent in poverty. Once you reach a certain threshold, being a more comfortable poor person isn't important. That threshold is somewhere between "the roof doesn't leak and I've got food" and "What? Only 300 channels of cable TV? I can't even get Fox Sports?" At that point, having more opportunities to rise above poverty and become middle class (or, dare I say it, even RICH) is more important than handouts. Eventually you come to the Russian Solution; everybody is poor, but the poor all have food. Over time that economy collapses, and there's nothing left to tax to give to the growing population of the chronically lazy. If sitting around not working means you get subsistence food and a crappy house, there's a reason to work for more. If sitting around not working means you get as nice an apartment as the guys who work, and as nice food as they do, and the same entertainment options they do, then a larger and larger number of people decide not to work. Your strategy works for a generation or two, at most, then it collapses. There's usually rather a lot of bloodshed at that point, and historically it's generally followed by some kind of autocracy. -- Shawn McMahon | Let's set the record straight. There is no argument EIV Consulting | over the choice between peace and war, but there is UNIX and Linux | only one guaranteed way you can have peace - and you http://www.eiv.com | can have it in the next second - surrender. - Reagan
Attachment:
pgpfg2OFIMtZi.pgp
Description: PGP signature