There was a counterfeiter operating in an unusual way. He had made a massive stash of cash, undetectable by ordinary means from the real thing. For a long time he never spent any of the money, lets say he made it for it's artistic qualities.
One day he came across a desperate orphan with some need that could be alleviated with money. He dipped into his stash and provided the funds. It made him so happy to help that child, that he continued to seek out the most needy among his fellows, and provide them with solutions to their despair. The happiness he brought to himself and others by the compassionate use of the counterfeit money was immense.
If you discover this scenario, say as a fraud detective, and can be certain (this is just a story) that your decision not to intervene couldn't be discovered, what would you do?
Can you predict what others think may be the best path based on their political persuasion?
How does the benevolent counterfeiter differ from the nanny state?
In a very real way, a more pure form of “welfare” could be accomplished by just printing the money needed to provide for the needy. No intervention into others lives need be, and the unintended consequences and distortions caused thereby suffered. This method is progressive with infinite resolution. Since basically it devalues the currency, those with more pay more in exact proportion to what they have.
This is NOT what I suggest, this is a multi part challenge to those who think the government isn't too big, it's just not perfected yet. Usually it turns out the welfare advocates wouldn't go for the monetization path because no one would have control of all those nasty rich people.
A master of ceremonies made an announcement that a speaker couldn't come to the ceremony, enumerated on the reasons given, adding “I leave it to you to speculate on the real reasons”. I've never forgotten that throw away line and it's penetrating effect.
What are the real reasons some cling to positions that show negative results?
Ricardo |
