Government officials like to practice allopathy on the population.

      Allopathy works on the principle that a alot of poison is bad for
you, but a little poison is good for you.

      Government officials wish to take wealth from the rich and give it
to the poor.  Ok, let's take that to its logical extreme.

      Say we passed a law that said everyone had to put all the money
they make every day into one large pool of money no matter how much or
how little they make.  Then the amount of money in that pool was divided
by the total number of people in the country, and was doled out to them
on that basis.

      That would level things wouldn't it?

      If there was enough money to go around then everyone would be doing
well, well enough to survive at least.  If not, then everyone would not
survive.  Fair is fair.

      (You might want to ask yourself if there would be enough to go
around, or if everyone would be starving to death the next week.  Just
how rich is the country as a whole, with people breeding out of control
and no natural selection testing them.)

      OK, now what's the problem with this scheme?

      Well for one, investment risk takes place only the presence of
abundance.  People will not risk investment capital unless they have
some to lose.  They will weigh the risks against the possible gains, and
only act if they have some margin to fall back on, in case everything
goes to hell.

      Simple fact is, people who are living a marginal life never invest.
They can't afford to lose anything because they have no financial
margin.  They only want sure things.

      Financial margin is simply affluence above and beyond your
immediate needs.

      People wish to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor
but they don't want to redistribute the risk the wealthy took in making
the investments that made them wealthy in the first place.  They want to
distribute the comfort of gains won, with out distributing the
discomfort of the fear and work and sleepless nights and bowel movements
that went into producing those gains.

      The poor of course think that the wealthy didn't take any risks
making their money, they just stole it from the poor, but holding that
view makes the poor not only poor but insane.

      The poor also consider that the fear and the risk the wealthy took
to make their gains ain't nothing compared to the fear and the risk the
poor take just by being alive and being poor.

      Now the magic of investment is that when an investment cycle wins,
everyone wins big time, everyone.  The returns from a successful
investment cycle can be 10 to 1000 fold for all of civilization.

      You an bitch about Nynex, but Graham Bell took a risk and the whole
world benefited from it.

      But the losses can be catestrophic too, particularly for the life
of the little guy who first took the risk.  He stands to lose all, even
though civilization stands to win everything.

      Sometimes the original inventor does lose everything, even though
the benefits of his risk investment change the course of history.

      The more a person wins in the investment game, the more he has in
financial cushion to cover future losses, and the more he is likely to
REINVEST his winnings, and eventually make really big investments with
huge returns that no one in the proper mind would undertake living on a
usual salary.

      By distributing the wealth completely to everyone, one levels not
only the havingness of everyone to the same level, but also the margin
to cushion future risk investment.

      If NO ONE has a large financial margin to risk investment, then the
really large risks with the really huge returns are never taken, and
society falls into a mediocrity that is hard to describe.

      People are not equal, either in ability, courage, or vision.

      The entire weight of the advance of civilization lies on the backs
of a very small percentage of the human race.  Most people have neither
the ability nor the courage to take the risks and make the investments
that civilization needs to really advance.  By hampering those that do
have this ability, we guarantee the final demise of civilization into a
black hole of eternal mediocrity.

      It is unfortunate however that there are so many losers in life.

      Mother Nature did not produce winners by decreeing that everyone
should win.  The vast majority of animals never live long enough to

      We in our infinite wisdom wish to guarantee that everyone live to

      There are two ways to level the playing field.

     1.) Hamper the winners making it easier for the losers to win
     2.) Enhance the losers making it harder for the winners to win

      Taking winnings from the winners and giving it to the poor is the
first.  "Your're winnings are not yours, they belong to everyone, you
MUST share!".

      Empowering the losers with ability and courage to play is the
second.  "You can win too and give the winners a run for their money,
and what you win is YOURS, but what they win is THEIRS too, ok?"

      These are two very different messages.

      Basically since the rich control the world anyway, including the
government, building a government that takes from the rich and gives to
the poor, will never work, because the rich will take it back in some
other way anyhow.  So I would give that up now.

      That means the only way to help the poor is to help the poor become
more able through training and education.

      This provides competition to the rich, and in the end produces a
better product for the population because only competition can guarantee
a better product, better warranties, better support and better return

     This is a very important point.  The signs of no competition are

      1.) Shoddy products
      2.) High prices
      3.) No Tech support
      4.) No return policies.
      5.) Withheld sales if you try to go elsewhere.

      Hell, check out the Church of Scientology if you want to see a
dictionary example of 'no competition.'

      If you allow the rich to continue with no competition but merely
take their product and give it to the poor, then you will be giving the
poor the shoddy products of the rich.

      If instead you enhance the ability of the poor to compete, then the
rich get leveled down to size anyhow, and the poor get a better product,
probably because its their own anyhow, and the rich have to bone up on
quality and customer service or else go totally out of business.

      The single most subversive thing you can do to a top heavy society
is provide competition.

      And that's social justice.

Thu Apr  2 21:34:33 EDT 2015