A few comments on Wes Burt's model: I'm not sure I understand every element of the model, but what I do understand of it makes good sense. As to why a rational social investment in dependent children remains the "Teflon Topic", I would venture that Wes Burt's model offers both the greatest net benefit and the most equitable distribution of that benefit, and therein lies its "weakness", at least for the moment. As long as the need exists for _some_ kind of policy for investing in dependent children, sub-optimal policies can be promoted as "better than nothing". Sub-optimal policies, by failing to provide the greatest net benefit will continue to generate mandates for even more sub-optimal policies and, by failing to provide equitable distribution of benefit, will create pockets of surplus funding that can be used as campaign funds to press for more, similarly sub-optimal policies. Another way of saying this would be that it may be the carrying cost of a public policy that generates the most dedicated constituency -- a vested interest. Wes Burt wrote, >Clearly, the flow of today's goods and services as shown by the upward arrow >in Figure 7, represents an "interest free investment" by members of the >workforce in the developing dependent members of the population. That >"interest free investment" is a blessing to the developing members and a >burden to the working members, and our only options are to keep the rate of >investment adequate and to distribute the burden equitably over the >productive taxpayers. - - snip - - >. . . Why does the more modest proposal, to subsidize >only the support of children, not have a corresponding international >organization promoting the less expensive, but more certain approach? > >Lets hear from the frequent posters, lurkers, and innocents on several mail >lists. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
