🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>
> The US is a sovereign nation and could nationalize all of business, so
> why do you suppose that it doesn't?
>
> Laws, maybe?

The original reference was to European ownership of the mineral wealth of Zaire. If
that's true, the Zaire government could take it over just like Mugabe is doing in
Zimbabwe.

But the Zaire government isn't. So two possibilities come to mind. Either Europeans
don't really control the minerals or the Zairean government thinks it best to leave
things alone.

>
> >And the Federal Reserve was created to prevent the boom-and-bust cycle, and
> >we had the Depression 16 years later.
>
> And no Depressions since - 60 years without a depression is an immense
> amount of time compared to what went on before.

It was sold to the American people as a stabilizer. But instead of eliminating
recessions, we have come to accept them as an ordinary part of the business cycle.

> >> Furthermore, I contend that individuals, left to their own devices, are
> >> generally too greedy to be very good at charity. While you and all your
> >> friends may be decent and giving people, the vast unwashed would rather buy
> >> more crap on the Home Shopping Network than help their fellow man.
> >
> >We have the Red Cross, United Way, and Salvation Army, among others, all
> >supported by donors. Whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world, we
> >are quick to send relief. And this is all for people we don't know and will
> >never meet. Don't you think we would respond even better if the needy
> >individuals were right in our own town?
>
> While those worthy organizations do a lot, their aid is hardly a drop
> in the bucket compared to the cost of major disasters.
>

Social programs sound great in theory but they're counterproductive in practice.
Suppose there was no welfare. In your town a man needs $300 a week to feed his
family. He can only find a job paying $200 a week. He should take that job, and his
neighbors should contribute the other $100. So the theory is that if we create a
governmental organization to collect donations from everyone, the money will be
available as needed. But in reality, the man receives $300 whether he works or not,
so he can't be expected to take the $200 a week job and esentially work for free.
So what would have been a charitable gesture of $100 per week to help a man who was
doing the best he could instead becomes a $300 per week subsidy to a man who
doesn't try at all.

Very soon, the recipient changes from feeling grateful to feeling entitled, and the
giver feels mugged instead of generous. It's a rotten deal all the way around.

Mark