Hello Harry, I've been working on something and have had little time to pay attention to my email. Nor do I have the time now, or the interest, to get into a discussion of the views of long-dead economists - Malthus, Ricardo, Henry George, and the like. I read them in my grad courses in the history of economic thought and found them interesting at the time, but rather questionable in terms of their relelvance to present day problems.
To me, one of the most essential questions that modern democracies must deal with is the obligations of the nation to its citizens and, of course, the obligation of citizens to each other. Perhaps these are the same thing, since the nation is its citizens compounded. What I hold as a matter of faith is that, in a nation like Canada that can afford it, no citizen should starve, go unhoused, or be denied education or access to health. This may reflect my early upbringing in socialist Saskatchewan, but if that is the case, so be it. I also hold as a matter of faith that most people, given the opportunity, will not try to bilk the system (well, perhaps a little) and will try to put in a honest day's work for an honest day's pay if work is available to them. However, I do know as a fact that there are many people who do take advantage of their position in society. This does include the poor. I know there are welfare cheats. But it also includes many people who are not poor. Our parliamentarians voted themselves a hefty raise last year without having to prove that their productivity would rise commensurately. While I for one would not want to abolish our Senate, many of its chairs are occupied by people who did little more than raise money for their political party, if that, and still do almost nothing for their pay. One of our Cabinet Ministers has become quite notorious for handing out plum contracts to his friends. And then, of course, there are corporate executives who award themselves huge pay increases and severance packages despite the fact that, like Nortel, their companies are barely staying afloat or going down the tubes. In my stay in the Calgary oilpatch a couple of decades ago, I saw many of instances of people taking advantage of their positions simply because, well, they were important, and being important, they deserved it. I participated. When we were in the Arctic on a Friday, instead of waiting for the sched to take us south the following morning, we had a Learjet come and get us that evening. We were important. We deserved it. So, Harry, I don't really think it's economics. It's us. Most of us are mostly honest most of the time, but many of us are in a position to take advantage of things, and we do. Ricardo, Malthus and H.George notwithstanding, the difference between the rich and the poor is that the latter are really not in a position to take advantage of things and are very easy to single out and blame when they try to do so. Sincerely, Ed Weick > Ed, > > I'm not sure that the term ideological applies only to those who oppose > welfare. It is just as ideological to support widespread welfare. My > "ideology" supports the entire removal of government welfare by making it > unnecessary. > > Those really hurting can be handled by various charities. > > Except that now the really hurting are overwhelmed by positively hordes of > people demanding welfare. The immediate reason for increasing welfare rolls > (apart from a small number of states who have pushed 'workfare' with some > success) can be linked to a threshold etc. etc. etc. etc.
