Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SARMAN who wrote (273836)	2/2/2010 9:01:51 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Good epithet Sarmaniac but you are projecting [to join in the popular internet sport of remote and free psychological evaluation]. If you read more slowly, without the florid state, you would have observed that the point of discussion was not the gifting process from the point of view of the donor, but the gift as seen from the point of view of the receivers. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iran etc got a pile of money given to them and so did Israel. The question was what they did with it. The suggestion had been that Israel was only good because Israel got a big gift. My point was that a much bigger gift went to OPEC places but they just bought baubles. A common theory in the welfare states is that if the gap between rich and poor is narrowed by giving the poor some money, they will turn into good little citizens too. In fact on the immutable principle that what gets rewarded gets done, you just get more welfare requirement. The welfare recipients correctly assume that if welfare behaviour is what you want, then to get more money they had better give you more of it. So they do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think. Mqurice