Avgas Where is the ceiling?

Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 22 Apr 2006 13:29:45 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.

So, what ARE the altervnatives?

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.

So, what ARE the altervnatives?

The answer is simple: The Free Market.

However, you are the one who said "give everyone his fair share" -- I
presume of natural resources? You may wish to expand upon this a bit
-- do you mean air? Water? Oil? Sunlight?

Regardless, I believe we should start the conversation with the
concepts of "worthiness" and "earning potential", as these are two
areas that seem to continually baffle you.

First, there is no one to "give" anything to ANYONE on this planet --
and for you to even start a debate with a statement like that
illustrates a vast ignorance of the way the world's economy works. You
EARN your way in the world's economy, and make yourself "worthy" of
receiving ANY share.

Second, there is no one to determine what a "fair" share of ANYTHING is
on this planet -- and, again, for you to make a comment like that shows
a remarkable naivete. In the world economy, each of us -- from
countries to citizens -- EARNS what we receive, or, rather don't
receive.

Are their inequities in this system? You bet! Here's just one
illustration of what happens when the Capitalist system isn't allowed
to work:

We've currently got a medical doctor staying at our hotel who runs a
department at a very large medical center. Because he is a public
employee, his salary is available on the web and is published in the
newspaper each year.

Imagine my surprise to discover that he personally, all by himself,
received more compensation last year than the hotel generated, in
total! He himself received more money than we received from ALL of our
revenue sources, and he himself received more money than we paid out to
ALL of our suppliers and employees COMBINED.

Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
not by a long shot. Our health care system in America is so screwed up
by regulation and red tape that the capitalist system's vaunted
efficiency has been completely wrung out of the equation. He is paid
that absurd amount of money because the system is allowing that to
happen -- not because he's "earning" it -- while at the same time new
mothers are being sent home 18 hours after giving birth due to "budget
constraints"...

Now, at the other end of the scale, here is a similar LOOKING example
that actually illustrates quite the opposite: The highest paid
government official in Iowa, by far, is (believe it or not) the
University of Iowa football coach, Kirk Ferentz. He is paid well over
a million dollars per year, BEFORE all of his endorsement contracts,
which boosts it to well over $2 million annually.

Does he EARN that money? You bet! The Hawkeyes (the football team)
bring in so much revenue that the University is able to fund ALL other
college sports, from lacrosse to field hockey, from softball to track
-- and still have money in the bank at the end.

If Ferentz were failing, and the Hawkeyes weren't winning, the college
would have to come up with $10 million annually (at least) to pay for
all those other "lesser" sports -- so in a very real sense, Ferentz
EARNS his money.

Now scale this up to the national and international level. Is Austria
EARNING it's "fair share" of natural resources? How about Kenya?
Bangaladesh? If not, why not? Are they earning more than they're
costing?

As you can see, your statements about "fair share" lose their meaning
rather quickly, in the real world.

Bottom line: Earn it, and it's yours. Fail to earn it, and reap the
consequences.

Worse yet, mess with the free market economy, and end up with bloated,
corrupt, over-paid bureaucrats -- like our vaunted doctor.

And Europe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:


However, you are the one who said "give everyone his fair share" -- I
presume of natural resources? You may wish to expand upon this a bit
-- do you mean air? Water? Oil? Sunlight?

Living in the midwest I'm sure you'd like to know where the line forms
to get your equal share of sunlight.


You
EARN your way in the world's economy, and make yourself "worthy" of
receiving ANY share.

Or form OPEC and artificially drive up the price.

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck wrote:
Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
not by a long shot.

He charged what the market would bear for his services -- that's how the
free market worked (sure, the health system has plenty of distortions,
but doctor's pay is not one of them: reduce doctors pay to what you
think they are 'earning', and you'd be hard pressed to fill the posts
because the doctors are smart enough to find somewhere else where they'd
get paid more).

Also, I'm not sure whether you miss it or not, but capitalism does need
some moderation otherwise it ends up just as bad as the old Soviet
system (for one, it tends towards monopoly which is BAD for free
markets. Yes, unmoderated capitalism can end up destroying the free
market).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
not by a long shot.

He charged what the market would bear for his services -- that's how the
free market worked

For HIM it's a "free market' -- but the health care market is far from
free.

In a true free market, a department head wouldn't be paid such an
exorbitant sum. Our health care "system" (really a giant, entangled
mess of regulations and interlinked government programs) has distorted
the market to the point where this guy is paid primarily to fleece the
system -- not to help provide health care.

To truly appreciate how f*cked up our health care system is, you need
to note: The hospital this doctor works for is a NON-PROFIT
organization.

Think about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck wrote:
For HIM it's a "free market' -- but the health care market is far from
free.

In a true free market, a department head wouldn't be paid such an
exorbitant sum.

And the department head would find there was a shortage of doctors. This
would result in him having to increase doctor's pay until the shortage
was addressed - supply and demand. That's unless immigration rules were
abolished.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko
hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.

And what about the people that created that stuff he wants to redistribute?