"Bart Goddard" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:XnsA2D6477233DFDgoddardbenetscapenet@18.104.22.168... > "Tom Potter" <email@example.com> wrote in news:ldp2gm$blo$1@dont- > email.me: > >> but I strongly believe that people on the public dole >> should NOT be able use the force of government >> to get OTHER PEOPLES MONEY to do research on ANYTHING >> that cannot be justified by returns to the people who pay the bills. > > Two things wrong here. First, after taxes are paid, the > money is no longer yours. Whether it's right or moral > is a different question, but once the government takes > the money, it's the government's. > > Second, and more important, there's a huge difference > between household finances and government finances. > A household is an open system. Money comes in and > money goes out and the notion of "wasting money" > makes sense. > > But with a country, there's sort of a law of conservation > of money. Not exactly, but it's the basic idea. One > of the jobs of good government is to keep the money > swirling around in the system. We have economic problems > when money starts piling up in one place and stays there. > > For instance: If some crackpot researcher happens to > get a $10 million NSF grant to study something completely > useless and pointless and, in fact, produces not even > esoteric knowledge, that money isn't "wasted". It's > spent on staff salaries and equipment. The staff buys > groceries with it and pays rent and the equipment company > in turn pays salaries and utility bills and buys raw > material from other companies who in turn pay salaries. > The grocery stores then have income which eventually > arrives in the pocket of some farmer, who buys diesel fuel > and seed corn. Note that at each transaction, there is > sales tax or income tax, so some of that money ends up > back in the government hands. Also note that without > the grant, the researcher, his RA's and his staff go on > welfare and tax money would STILL be paying their upkeep. > > It simply doesn't matter if some of the money spends some > time in a stupid place. What matters is that it keeps > moving. And stupid people generally can't hold onto money > for long, so "problem solved." > > They're not "wasting my money" because it's not "my" > and it's not "wasting".
According to Potter's Economic Law #4, in order to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, for the greatest number over the longest time,
it is necessary to modulate and CONTROL the flow of money,
and this can be best achieved by creating digital money, and using it to put money into the hands of people who NEED it, [ Sickness, famine, earthquakes, fires, floods, etc.]
and into the hands of SMALL entrepreneurs who will best use the money to create sustainable, energy-efficient products and services.
As I posted before, social change should be FORKED by SERENDIPITY rather than old HABITS and MODELS.
I have written Chinese leaders pointing out that if they created a digital money system,
and gave a few billion dollars to NEEDY folks all over the world,
and gave large PRIZES to people who ACTUALLY originate great social advances,
[As opposed to the Nobel Prizes that are given out to project heads of wasteful, costly high energy projects.]
that this would give them control of the World's money "movement" and condition folks to look as China as moral, benevolent leaders.
The best effect of having China control the "movement" of money, would be that it would prevent the people who GAME the economic system,
from instigating conflicts, revolutions and wars they can profit from, and it prevents money from being accumulated and wasted by widows and second generation rich.
The bottom line is, it is best to focus on NEED and SEED, rather than on GREED and CREED.