Quite right TBs and it annoys me when people selectively quote and alter the meaning. But I deny misquoting, though I was unclear on the target of my comment. I did read the part which disagreed with the idea expressed by McCain, but I was simply referring to the McCain concept as being frightening as it was he who was going to be president, not the writer [a no-account ranter like me].
But the writer was also going on about do-gooding as though the individual freedom was to choose your own way to do greater good [volunteering, Little League, starting a company]. Ick! I have nothing against anything like that, but the implication is that those things are 'really good things'. I disagree and think monopolist $ill and royalty profiteer Irwin Jacobs [and me] have done a LOT more for people than any do-gooder volunteers [and $ill will do a lot more good with his Windows than his vaccines - hmm, actually, he's so smart he'll probably do even better with his do-gooding].
That's because $ill and Irwin only do well if people choose their products and services. It's the act of voluntary choice which is crucial. People have chosen to give them vast payments and the level of profit is a direct measure of the level of good that is done. Customers only pay large profits to a company if the benefits from the products are commensurately large.
Your buddy Paul Krugman whines that Californians' wealth is being transferred to electricity suppliers and argues for a price cap. nytimes.com Since the Californian voters were so stupid as to arrange a shortage of electricity, they deserve to have their wealth transferred to those who dared put up the capital to produce electricity. The huge electricity profits are the rewards the shareholders should get. They are going to be robbed by monopolistic governments at state and federal levels if price caps are introduced.
For 'the greater good', the electricity shareholders are to be robbed. It's not for the greater good. It's for the pecuniary advantage of the Californian voters. Voting themselves rich will work in the short term, but I have already noted their criminal inclinations and will perhaps invest elsewhere. Voting oneself rich is the modern equivalent of cargo-cult.
Yes, I know the flow of immigration is towards the USA [and NZ and Australia]. It's when people have a lot of loot that they leave the USA. [That's my theory anyway based on those I know who have left] It's when they are trying to get money that they go there. If a place is really nice to live in, people with a lot of dosh go there. That's not a criticism. It is essential that the world have places to invest and create wealth. But I don't see any reason that a place couldn't be both a great wealth creator AND a great place to live when loaded.
Anyway, each to their own and the vast migrations taking place, and interbreeding, are changing the world pretty quickly now. The world is homogenizing, despite various efforts to retain ethnic and cultural purity by frustrated traditionalists. But now I think of it, that's very much on the fringes. China, India, Africa, Japan are not homogenizing much at all! That's happening mostly in NZ, Australia, Canada, USA where there are big immigrant populations from all over the world.
Mqurice |
