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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul ross who wrote (6032)	1/16/1998 8:19:00 AM
From: Dwight Taylor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

Paul-- That government handouts are responsible for a massive welfare state is a bit oversimplified. When the government restricts industry via EPA regulation, state and local tax burdens, OSHA, IRS, EEOC, etc,. it is no wonder industry moves to Korea, China, Latin America, Mexico. The displaced worker must now start over in a new industry or occupation. It is most certainly the responsiblity of government to assist the displaced worker simply due to the fact government policy created the problem in the first place. After all what is 'government' anyway--to serve. One must not think that the governing of the land and it's people is done in a large void. It is done to maintain civilization, to keep the people fed, sheltered and gainfully employed. The vast majority of people are content with this. To subsidize the economy via "handouts" is necessary for the simple reason to maintain peace and as a defensive posture against anarchy. One might argue the appropriation of the funds is oftentimes improper, a waste of money, or none of governments business. But that depends on your frame of reference. What logic is used to say it is an morally reprehensible or fiscally irresponsible act to assist the poverty stricken on the south side of Chicago, in contrast to assist Chrysler via government a) tax breaks b) loan re-structure c)grants ? The net result is the same. Instead of haggling over the meager portion that the welfare recipient takes home one must be compelled to look at the total picture. If usurpation of wealth the issue than one need not look much beyond the startling statistic that 40% of the wealth in this country is controlled by less than 1% of the population. Why is this? It can be answered in part by a remark credited to the late Henry Ford, and I paraphrase-- "Political issues, political boundaries are irrelevant. What move the economy and therefore policy is that which industry creates." And I would argue this has created a much larger usurpation of wealth than any other factor, notwithstanding the depressions, devaluations, confiscations, etc., that are inevitable in a fiat-based economy.