Pilot's Political Orientation

Judah wrote:
Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it also does not create wealth.
If it did, the manual laborers would be the wealthy ones.

Labor is not limited to *manual* labor. Try thinking of
labor as action by people. These actions includes
invention and organization as well as digging ditches.

Invention is what increases productivity and efficiency.
Without these increases we would still be dragging deer we
killed with rocks back to the cave by hand, digging
ditches with a stick and waiting for the invention of fire.

...the only way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets...

Increases in productivity and efficiency are what increase
wealth. If this were not true then we would have five
billion people trying to live in the same cave eating the
same deer.

Redistribution has nothing, by definition, with the
creation anything. No food, no shelter, nothing is made
by redistribution. It should only be used to provide for
those who are actually unable to provide for themselves.
It is a form of charity, not production.

Judah wrote:
I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.

You seem to be mired in the assumption that there is some
magical collection of assets that can only be
redistributed. This is patently false; it ignores the
reality that new and valuable assets are driven principaly
by invovation.

Take a recent very simple example: the asset value of the
computer industry world wide today is hundreds of billions
of dollars. These assets simply *did not exist* before
the invention of the computer, neither did the millions of
jobs in this sector.

Market speculation is one way to get rich, however even
here you may get confused. The speculators are the ones
who get rich or poor, not the companies that the stocks
represent.

wrote in message ...

I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy
who flys a small IFR-equipped (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a
year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at
small airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands)
doesn't begin to pay for the system.


The average G/A guy who flies a small IFR-equipped (with IFR GPS) airplane
100 hours a year and often utilizes GPS instrument approach procedures at
small airports doesn't begin to put a burden on the system.

wrote in message ...

Not since the advent of GPS approaches. Thousands have been
issued for small airports, and those cost just as much as a GPS
approach for Green Bay Interuniversal Skyport.


Well, if you can confidently make that statement, you must know the cost to
create a GPS approach. What is that cost?

wrote:

The guy who uses it [the small airport] to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200 hamburgers these
days?) is getting subsidized without his flight contributing very much to the
economy.

You may be right; on the other hand that $100 (or $200)
got spent. An airplane was built and bought, it was
maintained somewhere (likely on another small airport),
gas was bought and so forth.

Cities more often than not conclude that airports are an
economic add to the community. That's why they fund them.
So does the FAA.

Having said that, governmental decisions are often suspect
and I would like to see a study that addresses the
economic benefit of small airplanes.

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...

I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the
free market position could lead one to think that ... the general
approach of us being able to do our own thing as long as we
don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way away from the ultra conservative approach. They want
to control our every action and make our moral judgements for
us.


It is liberals that wish to control other people.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.

The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
disagree with that completely.


Your disagreement does not make it a false statement.

In article , wrote:

I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who
flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument
approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't
begin to pay for the system.

how much does that guy cost?

Say what?

How much does it cost "the system" for the "average G/A guy"?

Do you have any actual facts wrt to have much money would be saved
if the "average G/A guy" didn't use the system? I trust you have
facts, otherwise you wouldn't continually claim that the
"average G/A guy" doesn't begin to pay for the system.

--
Bob Noel

Hey come on, now. Cut me a break. You know what I meant!

I was just feeding a troll, anyway!


"Newps" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
Put it in perspective.

At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per
year.

The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.

Considering an airline pilot flies 80 hours a month, this is a pretty
neat trick.

Doug Carter wrote:
Judah wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?


By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?


Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt