Ferrari Mailing List: Re: Barstool Economics (was RE: Are Ferraris Losing Their Good Looks? )

[Ric Rainbolt (ricrainbolt]

At 10:48 AM 11/13/2008, you wrote:
> I agree with Ric on that point also, but the piece he is missing:
>
> The teenage mom struggling to raise her kid when their dad left them?
>
> The father who lost his job at the local plant, mostly due to poor
> management by his company, and finds the only job available to him is to
> serve burgers at local McDonalds as his skills are no longer useable or
> marketable and his saving will only last him a year?
>
> The pensioner, who's lifes savings were stolen away by some shady
> doctors or Enron executives?
>
> What is your answer for them?  Fuck you, your screwed?


Not really. But in a post-LBJ society, these are nameless, faceless 
individuals. In the pre-LBJ society, local groups (be it churches, 
social clubs or even taverns) would take care of these true hard luck cases.

This offered several advantages vs. a large centralized bureaucracy:

#1 - It's harder to defraud your fellow church members or community 
outreach folks (at least for the long term anyway). These people know 
your situation and provide the specific types of help you need... 
money, or maybe a car, or maybe day care, or maybe just a few hot 
meals a week, or heck even some odds-and-ends jobs. The FedGov Corp 
method is to simply throw money at you with very little oversight as 
to how the money is used.

#2 - It's harder to establish a life-long dependency on personal 
charities because at some point, the providers will lay down some 
"tough love" to get the recipients self-sufficient again. The FedGov 
Corp method can easily be manipulated into a lifetime of free money. 
Too many doctors, lawyers and politicians are on the take in the whole scheme.

#3 - Local, personal charities work to discourage the types of 
behaviors that lead to and perpetuate these situations. The FedGov 
Corp method actually encourages it.

#4 - Forgive the metaphysical nature, but charity is something that 
flows from one's "holy spirit" to another by the impulse of 
compassion. It's spiritually meaningful for both the giver and the 
recipient. Being forced at the point of law to help millions and 
millions of people you'll never know, meet or even hear about simply 
isn't charity. There is virtually no empathy manifested in the giver 
and no thankfulness manifested in the recipient. Actually, quite the 
opposite in both cases, as you get resentment in the giver and a 
sense of entitlement in the recipient.

The numbers speak for themselves. If 40% of our citizens are 
receiving direct benefits, that's 120-130 million people. Are there 
really that many hard luck stories like those you state above? Two 
out of every five people? I doubt it. Two or three million maybe, I'd 
believe that.

Now don't tell me local charities don't work. One of my main personal 
charities is a private orphanage. In 96 years, they've never taken a 
single government check. 100% privately supported. The children are 
taught good manners, a good work ethic and there is a strong emphasis 
on education and personal responsibility. They handle over 100 kids 
at any given time. Many of the employees make nothing at all or are 
simply reimbursed for their hard expenses. Compare this to the cold 
grey-iron nature of a government shelter of any kind.

As for government run "charities", why should the upper 10% of 
earners be saddled with 72.7% of the bill? If bureaucratic charity is 
such a good thing, why is it great for me, but not-so-great for the 
bottom 50% of wage earners?

RR