From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:34:06 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Bxop7r.so@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:

|>In article <KxC=h9B@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|>|The depression occured in the 30's.  The insurance level was increased from
|>|$40,000 to $100,000 in the 70's.  I don't think the banking system was
|>|so bad off in the 70's that this increase was warranted.

|>The program was instituted in the 30's because some legislators thought it was
|>a good thing, a safety net whose worth could only be measured in times of
|>catastrophe.  The potential for catastrophe had not lessened in the 70's but
|>the value of money used to measure someone's net worth had.  Raising the
|>payback restored the level of protection that had eroded over 40 years due to
|>inflation.

It might interest you to know that several companies were interested in 
offering bank deposit insurance back in the mid 1920's.  Because the
government had already started regulating insurance, these companies had
to get government permission to offer such insurance.
Needless to say, the government refused them permission.  The policy wogs
at the time felt that this was a function that the government could handle
better.  By the time the insurance was needed, the government hadn't gotten
around to implementing the policy that it had decided was its responsibility.

BTW, during the same time, there were companies that were interested in
offering unemployment insurance.  They were likewise turned down by the 
powers that be.

Bank deposit and unemployment insurance are good ideas.  The bad idea was
having the government run it in the first place.

|>|Even if you incorporated, you would still have to draw a salary or
|>|take a dividend if you wanted to spend money on non-business items.

|>Why?  If my corporation owns my house and car, and my corporation has to pay no
|>taxes, then I don't have to justify corporate spending for business expenses,
|>because I don't have to worry about deductions, or profits, because regardless
|>of what the balance sheet looks like, my corporation has to pay no taxes.  I
|>can pay myself a modest salary (low enough to avoid paying income taxes), and
|>then charge my living expenses to the corporation, because the corporation
|>doesn't have to justify it.  It pays no taxes.

The solution is obvious.  Have individuals pay tax on all compensation, not
just monetary compensation.  (My company used to give out a small bonus every
Christmass, now they give out frozen turkeys instead.  They do this because
turkeys are not money, I would have rather had the cash.)

An alternate solution would be to eliminate the income tax altogether.

|>|You seem to forget that we have a Constitution which is designed to protect
|>|the rights of *all* people.  Unfortunately, many of those protections are
|>|simply ignored.

|>I haven't forgotten at all.  But you seem to have forgotten that we live in a
|>society with the rule of law, designed to protect the common good (the
|>majority) from unsocial acts of the individual.  What would happen if you tried
|>to drive your car at 120 mph through the middle of your city?  Well, you might
|>get caught and possibly thrown in jail, because Society has determined that
|>such an act is dangerous enough to the common good that it outweighs your right
|>to drive your car as you choose.  So, which of your protections have been
|>ignored recently?

The will of the majority is not an absolute right.  What if a majority of
people decided to bring back slavery?  The constitution was supposed to set
bounds on the power of government.  No matter how many people want to do
something, if the constitution denies the government a power, it does not
have that power.

|>First of all, though the Abolitionist were a vocal minority, it is not clear
|>(i.e., I don't have the statistics sitting in front of me) that those who
|>believed in Abolition were in the minority (remember that the industrial North
|>was already more populous than the South).

So what?  Do you feel that all northerners were against slavery and all
southerners were for it?

|>Secondly, the greatest good for the
|>greatest number is the principle upon which all democracies are based.  Ours
|>was a unique democracy in that the founders took a great deal of care to ensure
|>that the rights of the minority were also protected, specifically by having two
|>legislative houses, one with representation based on population and the other
|>not.

No.  The rights of the minorities were protected by limiting the power of the
government.

|>Competing interests for donations do not comprise a free market.

They don't.  You have a mighty strange definition of a market.  If there is
more than one organization that is interested in competing for you dollar
than there is a market.  It doesn't matter whether they are competing for
donations or for sales.  The group that convinces you that you will get the
most benefit from your dollar will win.

|>Altruism is a
|>much less powerful motivator than self interest, and the rewards for some are
|>much more illusory.  In a free market, there is a strong motivator to fill a
|>need: profit.  The only thing that comes close in the charity industry is
|>guilt.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.  Profit is the motive of the company
(seller) and guilt is a motive for the purchaser (donor).

On the supplier side, there is plenty of motive for charitable organizations.
They are motivated to get you to donate to them.  If they fail to get 
enough donations, then they are history.  Just like a company going 
bankrupt.

On the donor side there is also plenty of motivation.  Just as a purchaser
wants to get the most product for his money, when I give, I want to give
to the organization that I feel will do the most good with my donation.

In addition, just as there are certain products that I do not like and
therefore do not buy.  There are certain social groups that I do not
approve of and will not support.  This is myu right.

|>I've worked at large companies enough years to know the arm twisting
|>that goes on under the auspices of United Way.  They can't make you give money,
|>but they sure can place you in circumstances to inspire sympathy or guilt.

I strongly disapprove of the tactics used by most national charities, which
is why I rarely contribute to them anymore.  I give locally so that I can
know that my money is being put to a good use.

|>In the free market environment, as a need grows, the motivation to fill that
|>need (potential profit) correspondingly grows.  No similar motivator operates
|>when it comes to charity.

Really.  Are you saying that we are getting the same amount of donations
to AIDs groups that we would be getting of there were only a few hundred
sufferers.

|>Charities usually play a zero sum game, competing
|>with each other for limited resources.  An example here in Portland is how
|>corporate donations to small theatres have dropped off nearly completely,
|>despite their demonstrated excellence, both in artistry and financial
|>management, the fixed "arts" donations being shifted to meet the needs of one
|>or two large equity houses.

So what.  No matter what the endeavor, there will never be enough resources 
to go around.  Are you saying that we have an obligation to give to
everybody who wants some of our money.  BTW, if these theatres were so
excellent, how come they weren't attracting enough pattrons to keep there
doors open on their own.

|>Regarding the question of checks and balances in government giving, look at any
|>of the government foundations (National Science Foundation, National Institute
|>of Health, National Foundation for the Humanities, National Endowment for the
|>Arts, etc.).  All of them use boards of review which qualify their giving,
|>selecting among the qualified applicants to choose those with the most merit.

Whoop-de-do.  Political apointees, making political decisions.  Wheres my
right to not donate to any of the groups that these organizations are
likely to support.

|>The fact that governments are necessary to solve societal problems is easily
|>proved.  Can you name one country in the entire world that does not have a
|>government?  The fact that they exist is a sine qua non of their necessity.

So you feel that the fact that government exists at all is proof that
government can solve all problems.  I agree that there are some functions
that the government can best solve.  For me these areas are defense, courts 
and police.  You were asked what areas the government made better.
You responded, that they existed so they must be doing something right.
Government can do a few things, but is charity one of them?

|>I would suggest that racial tensions are much less now than 30 years ago
|>because of government intervention.  And there are more minority professionals
|>because of government affirmative action and education programs like Headstart.

Have racial tensions gotten better over the last 30 years.  The evidence
seems to imply just the opposite.  I thought we were talking about
charities, how does AA fit in.
Are you saying that programs such as head start never would have started 
without government intervention?

|>Cities across the nation have been revitallized thanks to government urban
|>renewal projects.

Every city that I know of is crumbling.  This so called government help
isn't doing much good.

|>And prior to the last twelve years, the distribution of
|>wealth was growing towards uniformity, albeit slowly (of course, the Reagan and
|>Bush administrations restored the maxim that the rich get richer while the poor
|>get poorer).

Actually the poor did not get poorer, they just did not get rich as fast as
those who were already rich.  BTW, the income gap has grown in just about
every country in the world, even in countries with tax rates much, much
higher than the US's.  I suppose Reagan was responsible for those countries
as well.

The problem is that those with educations are getting good jobs, and
those without are going hungry.  This is an education problem not a wealth
problem.

|>We may not be any better off with government taking SOME responsibility for the
|>poor, but we certainly aren't any worse off.

I don't see these government programs helping anyone besides those who
administer them.  Poverty programs have grown from nothing in the 20's
to hundreds of Billions of dollars today.  If anything poverty has gotten
steadily worse during that time.

|>I seriously question whether
|>capitalism is a viable economic system without the presence of an underclass.
|>There always will be shit jobs that nobody wants to do except those who can't
|>otherwise find work.  There always has to be some unemployed people to ensure
|>that the shit-job workers keep working (or lose their jobs to the currently
|>unemployed).

The same can be said for any economic system.  Why do you single out
capitalism.

|>My point here, as in previous discussions, is that governments get a bad rap
|>despite all the good that they do for us,

Again, you apparently see more good than I do.  Government intervention
has made worse every problem they have tried to solve.

|>and that bureaucracies are generally
|>wasteful, whether they are governmental or private.

Agreed, which is one of the reasons I do not donate to national charities.
But even so, I think you will find that the private charities still get
a much higher percentage of the donations to the target populations than
does the government.

|>Bigger government is one
|>of the prices you pay for larger populations.

So you say.  But you don't offer any proof.  Bigger populations are an
excuse, not a cause.

|>When you have an excess of
|>resources, you don't bump into the walls.  When you start competing for
|>resources, you either have war or intensive negotiation.

I'm sorry but I can't make heads or tails of this.

|>Want to reduce big
|>government?  Stop having babies.

OK, so how do I stop everyone else from having babies.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc