Quote of the moment: John Kenneth Galbraith pokes fun at conservative politics


John Kenneth Galbraith, BusinessWeek image

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith, BusinessWeek image

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith
“Stop the Madness,” Interview with Rupert Cornwell, Toronto Globe and Mail (6 Jul 2002)

(I find this attributed to Galbraith at several places — where and when did he say that?)

About these ads

38 Responses to Quote of the moment: John Kenneth Galbraith pokes fun at conservative politics

  1. Jim says:

    Actually Flag, Jesus does use “YOU” language in Matthew 25…speaking to “the nations”, the “ethnos” in Greek. Sorry, but his teaching is abudantly clear to any who are not trying to justify their own greed and avarice.

    So government is oppressing the rich? Let’s see…

    The public schools here are outstanding. Was government oppressing me — I am fairly well off — when they taxed me for education? If so, have you an alternate proposal that would allow my daughter to be educated in such a safe, academically rigorous environment?

    A highway near my home was just resurfaced. Was government oppressing me when they used some of the tax money I pay to make that happen? How do you suggest we improve roads, bridges and airports sans taxation?

    Do you believe drinking water and air that is free of carcinogens is a basic human right worth taxing the citizenry to make a reality? If not, fine…how do you propose we go about making water potable and air breathable?

    Is your argument, Flag, that there should be no taxation at all? Are you of a mind to say a flat tax is the panacea America needs? Or is Somalia actually what you consider to be a good example of a Libertarian paradise?

    Cheers!
    Jim

    Like

  2. Black Flag® says:

    Jim

    Some good stuff in your posts to me, on which we agree. First though, it is not true that Jesus nullified or in any major way did away with the teachings of the prophets and the lawgivers. Indeed, he was the one inspiring them in the first place.

    As I said, he dispensed with the Old Testament and its “laws” – the religious history lessons in the book are moot to his cause.

    Before Abraham was, I AM.

    Before Abraham was, I AM too.

    the second says basically the same about societal and not just individual responsibility to the poor and marginalized.

    I disagree strongly.

    Jesus did not say “We”.

    He said “You”.

    I believe he was completely wise enough to know the difference, and to know that whatever is required to invoke a “we” into an action, no matter how much one may believe it to be a good, requires the use of violence on those that refuse to act with “our” group.

    Jesus’ last judgment condemnation was of nations — societies — governments in Matthew 25. The original language matters

    Perhaps, however, it supports the point that it did not invoke nations to act but individuals, and criticized those institutions such as nations in their actions – for the reason I alluded to above.

    Throughout this passage you suggest, his lessons were concluded by a statements of “and you shall”, not a “we shall”…..

    (Interesting you’d point to those passages -25/14- remembering the question “Did Jesus abhor wealth?”

    Here, he offers a parable where bags of gold are invested and wealth multiplied, and how such things were good and expected of righteous men)

    Who is oppressing rich people?

    Governemnt

    Who is proposing the oppression of the rich?

    Government

    In America, Flag…who is proposing the oppression of the wealthy?

    Ibid

    Government

    Barack Obama? By suggesting they pay 38, rather than 34 %? The rich of 1955 would have loved to have been so oppressed.

    So, if a man steals less this year then before, we must celebrate our freedom!

    Today’s rich are, with some honorable exceptions, not nearly so educated.

    What a shame. In more ways than one.

    Shame?

    No, as their success or failure are theirs to bear – it matters not one wit either way to me – its neither my success or my failure.

    That the rich do tend to become careless is common – as their riches cause forgetfulness of how they became rich.

    The paradox of success – it hides the impending failures.

    Success lulls their victims into believing “what worked in the past, will work in the future” – however, progress holds no such circumstance – indeed, it could be argued that the opposite is true.

    As success continues into the future, progress magnifies this difference, until one day – the past no longer works today.

    The rich, long lulled into laziness, get caught, wiped out and replaced by the “new” rich, and the circle repeats.

    It is interesting to note that of the top 100 wealthiest people 50 years ago, there are only 5 left out of 100 of today.

    Like

  3. Jim says:

    Howdy Flag…

    Some good stuff in your posts to me, on which we agree. First though, it is not true that Jesus nullified or in any major way did away with the teachings of the prophets and the lawgivers. Indeed, he was the one inspiring them in the first place. Before Abraham was, I AM. (We don’t agree on that, of course.) Maricionism and Gnosticism are so 2nd Century!

    But even if you want to leave aside the first testament, the second says basically the same about societal and not just individual responsibility to the poor and marginalized. Jesus’ last judgment condemnation was of nations — societies — governments in Matthew 25. The original language matters.

    I never said though — at least i hope I didn’t and if I did, I retract it and apologize — that Jesus or anyone in the Bible condemned wealth or being wealthy. Indeed, the first testament says not to favor the rich OR the poor. Jesus would certainly be opposed to the oppression of rich people. I totally agree. He opposes the oppression of anyone.

    Who is oppressing rich people? Who is proposing the oppression of the rich?

    Marxist societies have and do. This is why I hate Marxism, among other reasons.

    Post-revolution France oppressed the rich. This is why I largely consider that revolution a failure.

    In America, Flag…who is proposing the oppression of the wealthy? Barack Obama? By suggesting they pay 38, rather than 34 %? The rich of 1955 would have loved to have been so oppressed. Or perhaps not, they may well have been informed enough to realize that everyone should participate in infrastructure and growth. Today’s rich are, with some honorable exceptions, not nearly so educated.

    What a shame. In more ways than one.

    Like

  4. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Both Washington and Madison wrote about how our Constitutional government functions best when men are moral. No violence needed.

    And I bet you believe in the tooth fairy.

    If all men are moral, no government is will ever exist.
    If all men are not moral, government is tyranny.

    Government under the Constitution is not legitimized violence, if you don’t force it to be by your own misbehavior.

    Lol!

    So the fault your loss is that you aggravate the thief!

    I do no harm, yet government attacks me.

    That is “legitimized” violence, because weak men like you support such.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Both Washington and Madison wrote about how our Constitutional government functions best when men are moral. No violence needed.

    BF said:

    Government is legitimized violence that is applied upon violent and non-violent men at a whim.

    Only for those men who do not comport themselves to live peacefully in a democratic republic.

    Government under the Constitution is not legitimized violence, if you don’t force it to be by your own misbehavior.

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:

    James, not Jim or Dan :)

    Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

    Government is a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a geographical area.

    To ask of it for protection from initiation of violence when it -at its core- the greatest instigator of it is utterly foolish.

    Your side

    What’s “my side”?

    I think you have me confused with something else.

    distorts economics so that economics solely benefit exactly one class…the class with all the money.

    Government is legitimized violence that is applied upon violent and non-violent men at a whim.

    If a man wishes not to be the target of government violence, he endeavors to control government violence and use it against his adversaries and for his own benefit.

    All men who reach for control of government have this goal regardless of their economic class – rich or poor.

    It becomes no surprise that classes of men ally with the force of violence to (1) dissuade its application against them (2) apply its application on others.

    In a modern democracy, the tools of such control revolve around the “vote” – not that voting is worth anything in of itself – it is the legitimizing of government that the voting accomplishes.

    Thus, one gets government by being legitimized — and one can buy it or bribe WITH IT

    So I can buy a politician’s favor – this is the method of the rich.
    Or, a politician will BRIBE the poor for their legitimizing vote…
    or…
    Do both at the same time

    It is the existence of government that distorts men – by legitimizing violence on the non-violent – the use of the gun to force free men to act against their will and surrender their property to others who have not earned – is opposite of civilization.

    Government and Civilization are OPPOSITES and in constant conflict with each other. As one rises the other falls.

    For some dumb ass reason your party seems to think that “capitalism” and “free market” means that the businesses can do as they damn well please, screw any rules and if that completely fucks up the country and the people living in the country well..that’s the cost of business. Sorry, that’s morally depraved from the start.

    You believe free men in voluntary trade are doing something wrong, justifying YOU to apply violence upon them.

    You promote EVIL.

    And yet that is what various coal mining towns in the Applachian mountain region have to deal with simply because Massey Energy, and others, can’t be bothered to act responsibly because that costs them profit, as if they’re not making more money then King Midas already, so when the people try to use the government to compel businesses to act responsibly you and your party scream “socialism” in a blatant act of stupidity.

    The case you raise is not an example of “free market” but an example of government regulation

    Government regulation does not exist to stop pollution.

    Government regulation exists to allow pollution. Government regulations ALLOW the polluting of the water – against the wishes of the people. The people are helpless for they believe they have no legitimate avenue to rescue themselves other than appealing to the same evil entity that has legitimized the pollution!!!

    And then your party claims that “the free market will fix the problems” despite the fact that you can’t point to a single example in modern human history of the free market doing any such thing.

    You are blind to the very environment you live in.

    Nearly everything you have has been provided by the free market – it has allowed you to accumulate riches greater than King Henry VIII – who was the richest man in the world of his time.

    You are incredibly confused human being – no doubt a shining example of the public schooling system.

    So to be blunt…since companies can not be trusted to do the right thing then yes, little one, a certain amount of regulation is necessary.

    Because men can’t be trusted, you give men the right impose upon other men – thinking these men are more trusted then the men you don’t trust.

    Do you think your position makes any sense at all?

    Like

  7. Black Flag® says:

    James,

    Oh and Black…have fun choking on the attempt to paint John Adams as “socialist” or “anti-capitalist.”

    From Galbraith to John Adams in less a page…. whew!

    or that you somehow know more about the system the founding fathers wanted then one of the founding fathers themselves.

    *Scratch head*

    So “we” know -by your own statement- what the “founding” fathers wanted in their “system” based on their writings, but “we” don’t know about the system of the “founding” fathers … because, …… “we” don’t know how to read?? or what?

    How do we know yet not know something about the same thing at the same time???

    What are you really trying to say???

    Like

  8. Oh and Black…have fun choking on the attempt to paint John Adams as “socialist” or “anti-capitalist.” or that you somehow know more about the system the founding fathers wanted then one of the founding fathers themselves.

    Let me know when you’re going to be concerned about your wellbeing for once in your miserble life.

    Like

  9. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

    John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

    As for this, Black: You cannot complain about one side of a coin of politics – and infer the other side of the side of the coin does not do the same.

    All politics distorts economics.

    Oh on that agreed. Here’s the rub. Your side distorts economics so that economics solely benefit exactly one class…the class with all the money. Then there’s the fact I have yet to see you, Morgan or any other conservative here even come close to criticizing the Republicans and the right wing for anything and yet there you sit preaching to me that “both sides do it.”

    For some dumb ass reason your party seems to think that “capitalism” and “free market” means that the businesses can do as they damn well please, screw any rules and if that completely fucks up the country and the people living in the country well..that’s the cost of business. Sorry, that’s morally depraved from the start.

    Would you like to drink water that is the color of blood? Would you like to breathe air that smells of sulfur? I doubt it. And yet that is what various coal mining towns in the Applachian mountain region have to deal with simply because Massey Energy, and others, can’t be bothered to act responsibly because that costs them profit, as if they’re not making more money then King Midas already, so when the people try to use the government to compel businesses to act responsibly you and your party scream “socialism” in a blatant act of stupidity.

    And then your party claims that “the free market will fix the problems” despite the fact that you can’t point to a single example in modern human history of the free market doing any such thing.

    Only a mental midget thinks that the fox guarding the henhouse isn’t going to raid the henhouse. Only a mental midget thinks that, for example, Massey energy is going to suddenly clean up their act voluntairly. Only a mental midget thinks that Massey Energy gives a damn what is best for the people they affect and would be affected if those people got mad at them. You think Massey Energy gives a damn that its employees and their families are being negatively affected by the pollution that Massey Energy puts out? In those towns mining companies like Massey Energy control nearly everything and provide all the jobs. What power do those towns have against that situation?

    So to be blunt…since companies can not be trusted to do the right thing then yes, little one, a certain amount of regulation is necessary. Because the “free market” time and time again proves that it has no power to do what your side claims.

    Your side doesn’t want capitalism or free market…it wants economic piracy and economic serfdom. After all…your side is doing everything possible to make damn sure the average person in this country has no power.

    The Gilded Age, dimwit, was only Gilded for some.

    Like

  10. Black Flag® says:

    James,

    What we dislike is economic piracy because the free market has been twisted by those with power and means so that it serves only their interests and keeps everyone else economically downtrodden and weak.

    Then it is NOT a free market – it is something else other than a free market.

    The free market exists on voluntary trade – if trade is forced by threat or use of violence, it is certainly not “free” nor voluntary.

    Galbraith understood this, as he was not a stupid man.

    His complaint was about the free choice of men – which confounds others who demand men follow some edict.

    He counseled manipulating the market place so to obtain some sort of end that he assumed was a better outcome …. for who? For Galbraith….

    Which is why we Kenesian’s have a problem

    Keynesian’s have many problems….

    with the Republican party and their rich masters. Why? Because they’ve twisted capitalism so that they are the only ones getting ahead and the rest of us are little better then pitifully paid servants.

    You cannot complain about one side of a coin of politics – and infer the other side of the side of the coin does not do the same.

    All politics distorts economics.

    Politics requires resorting to violence and coercion to gain obedience.

    Economics abhors violence and coercion.

    Like

  11. Scrooge says:

    Some learn from history, some just want to repeat it. Keynesians just understand that the pendulum swings both ways but is best facing south. It can face north by either going to far left or to far right. Its two different ways to get there but the end result is the same for the vast majority.

    Like

  12. Black Flag® says:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019:16-19:30&version=NIV

    Read it carefully – Jesus does not infer the wealth is bad.

    The boy asks what he needs to do to get to heaven, and Jesus tells him “follow the commandments”.

    The boy -incredulously- says “yep, done that already” and presses Jesus for a “what else”?

    Jesus says, To be perfect – knowing full well the foolish boy cannot have been perfect in maintaining the commandments – as no man is perfect – goads the boy – “alright, give away all your things and follow me.”

    Of course, the boy – who was never perfect, but quite full of himself up to then – finds himself unable to comply – which really meant he wasn’t able to comply with the first commandments either.

    Jesus’ retort to his disciplines is simple – if you love something else other than God, heaven is not your goal.

    Like

  13. Despite your delusion to the contrary, Keynesian’s don’t hate the free market. What we dislike is economic piracy because the free market has been twisted by those with power and means so that it serves only their interests and keeps everyone else economically downtrodden and weak.

    Which is why we Kenesian’s have a problem with the Republican party and their rich masters. Why? Because they’ve twisted capitalism so that they are the only ones getting ahead and the rest of us are little better then pitifully paid servants.

    You might want to look up the percentage of the country’s income that was going to the lower tax brackets versus the top tax bracket before 1979 and what it is now. And then you can figure out how much more money you’d be making if what was going on from 1947-1979 wasn’t completely reversed by the Republicans and Ronald Reagan.

    Like

  14. Black writes:
    Jesus hated oppression – neither the object of the oppression nor who the oppressor was did not make a difference to him.

    Uhhuh…tell me…do you happen to remember what Jesus said about how easy it is for a rich man to get into heaven?

    Like

  15. Black Flag® says:

    Jim

    Sorry! I entangled you and Dan – both arguing approximately the same so I thought for a moment you were both the same person!

    Jesus hated whatever oppressed the poor and needy.

    Jesus hated oppression – neither the object of the oppression nor who the oppressor was did not make a difference to him.

    It did not matter whether the man was rich or poor in either position of oppressor or oppressed – it was the oppression act itself that was condemned.

    In the Bible,

    The “Bible” – by which I assume you refer the “Old” Testament – has no bearing on teachings of Jesus, other than a counter-point to his own Testament.

    Like

  16. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    He was not a stupid man – we agree here.

    You do not defend freedom by counseling its destruction.

    of his great work making the American war machine function well to defeat the Nazis in World War II, and the communists in the Cold War.

    War does not make men, nor nations great.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Galbraith, a Keynesian, always hated the free market.

    John Kenneth Galbraith never missed an opportunity to defend free markets, especially against command market economies. But then, he was a great scholar, a man of great breadth of education and reading, and he didn’t jump to unwarranted conclusions, nor did he make it a practice to make wild, unsubstantiated statements.

    Consequently, when he defended free markets, kings, princes, presidents and dictators listened to him. Your life is measurably better because of his work — not least because of his great work making the American war machine function well to defeat the Nazis in World War II, and the communists in the Cold War.

    Some people are ungrateful, and in error.

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:

    Dave,

    @Black Flag: Galbraith didn’t hate the free market. He simply didn’t make an idol of it, and recognized its Darwinian limitations.

    As all elitists do, they believe they should be free, but not other men because, though they demand freedom of action for themselves, they fear that same freedom for other men.

    Their mantra:
    “Freedom for me but not for you”

    I react to what is necessary.

    Indeed!
    He was a pragmatist – and as with all pragmatism, it is a stepping stone of evil.

    One must discard one’s principles in favor of an immediate benefit – that is, ignoring the long term in favor of a short term.

    All pragmatist -eventually- become twisted; once the consequences of discarding their principles bear fruit, they cry for mercy – which, really, is merely another pragmatist tactic.

    There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action.

    Here, I do not agree at all.

    The State is not inevitable, nor necessary.

    It exists as a consequence of the profit of violence – and theft is very, very profitable.

    It becomes no surprise that the State operates as a mechanism to legitimize, centralize and magnify such theft and in a manner to limit competition to its thievery.

    Like

  19. @Black Flag: Galbraith didn’t hate the free market. He simply didn’t make an idol of it, and recognized its Darwinian limitations.

    Or, to give another quotation from the man:

    I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I’m for that. Where the government is necessary, I’m for that. I’m deeply suspicious of somebody who says, “I’m in favor of privatization,” or, “I’m deeply in favor of public ownership.” I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case.

    (Interview with Brian Lamb, Booknotes, C-SPAN (13 Nov 1994))

    Like

  20. Black Flag® says:

    Hey Jim!

    My response is posted in the “7 Billion” thread!

    Regards!

    Like

  21. Jim says:

    Good afternoon, Flag!

    As has been pointed out to you in another thread, Jesus hated whatever oppressed the poor and needy. In the Bible, as you are abundantly shown, the obligation of government — in addition to individuals and the church/temple — to do economic justice vis a vis the poor and marginalized is indisputable.

    It’s your right not to accept it. It’s even your right to say Jesus and the prophets were a bunch of idiotic, bleeding heart do-gooders. It’s not your right to claim they were fans of plutocracy.

    Cheers!

    Jim

    Like

  22. Black Flag® says:

    Jesus didn’t hate the free market either – why would he hate men who were engaged in voluntarily trading goods?

    Like

  23. Jim says:

    Flag says,

    “Galbraith, a Keynesian, always hated the free market.”

    Nice to know he and Jesus have something in common.

    Like

  24. Black Flag® says:

    Galbraith, a Keynesian, always hated the free market.

    Like many reformers – Galbraith has as his basic objection of a free market is that it frustrates them in achieving their reforms,
    because the free market enables people to have what they want, not what the reformers want.
    Hence every reformer has a strong tendency to be averse to a free market.

    Like

  25. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve updated my quotation with most of the above info — just in time to discover that (eek!) someone’s updated the Wikiquotes page to my citation (and a link back to me).

    You’re becoming (justly) famous. Virtue in scholarship is its own reward, or something like that.

    Like

  26. I’ve updated my quotation with most of the above info — just in time to discover that (eek!) someone’s updated the Wikiquotes page to my citation (and a link back to me).

    Like

  27. [...] a quote from someone somwhere who apparently has never heard of (or read or been influenced by) Mr Burke. Actually, if you think [...]

    Like

  28. [...] a quote from someone somwhere who apparently has never heard of (or read or been influence by) Mr [...]

    Like

  29. I do find a number of (scholarly) books citing the Galbraith quote as “(2002)”, though, which makes me think there’s some basis for it. *sigh* Pretty confused at this point.

    Like

  30. And another earlier citation (with a bit different prelude):

    The modern conservative is in fact, not especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest pursuits, best financed and most applauded and, on the whole least successful exercises in moral philosophy. This is the search for a truly superior moral justification for selfishness.

    In “I Wish I’d Made You Angry Earlier,” Max Perutz, 1998 (paperback 2002)

    http://books.google.com/books?id=GkODMkCWndQC&pg=PA325

    So it’s looking pretty certain to me that the G&M citation is inaccurate, unless Cornwell requoted Galbraith there.

    Like

  31. Ruh-roh. Found an extended version of the quote, cited to JKG, in “Peter’s Quotations” in 1997. http://books.google.com/books?id=W6bPGIL-_-8C&pg=PA132

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictionss and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-buiding value of privation for the poor.”

    Like

  32. The article seems to be behind the pay firewall at the Globe & Mail, unfortunately. Searching on “cornwell galbraith,” or “galbraith moral justification” or “galbraith stop the madness”) bring up a few article titles, including a Letter to the Editor from 10 July that year, 4 days later (“A Few Bad Apples”).

    There’s another interview by Cornwell published a day earlier in the Independent. http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/GalbraithInterview.htm – it doesn’t have the quote, but tells me that the two men were together at that point and may well have done multiple interviews.

    Argh. Clearly I got it from somewhere, but my Google Fu is failing me.

    Like

  33. Hmmm. Let me see if I can (re-dig) up the source. Obviously I got it from somewhere.

    Glad you like the site. It’s a true labor of love.

    Like

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    Dave:

    1. Wist is a great site. Why have you hidden it from me so long?

    2. I was just reading at Wikiquotes that this Galbraith quote can’t be sourced, and so they are planning to remove it. You’ve made a great save, if I can convince them.

    Like

  35. “Stop the Madness,” Interview with Rupert Cornwell, Toronto Globe and Mail (6 Jul 2002)

    (as dug up on my own quotations database, http://wist.info/galbraith-john-kenneth/7463/)

    Like

  36. Jim says:

    I wish I could help, Ed. But Galbraith — one of the most intelligent economists and theorists in the history of the world — was right.

    Jim

    Like

  37. Then there is this: I believe it was Lyndon Johnson that said, ‘Don’t these people realize if they push me over to an extreme position I’ll lose the election? And I’m the one who will be supporting what they want but they’re going to make it so I can’t win.’ Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off of this stuff. They’re forcing their leaders, the frontrunners, into positions that will mean they lose the general election. Now whether this did it to Cain I don’t know, but nevertheless, you appeal to the narrow base and they’ll applaud the daylights out of what you’re saying and then you hit the general election and they say ‘no way’ and then the Democrat, whoever it is, is going to just play these statements to the hilt. They’ve got to stop this! It’s just so counterproductive!

    Oh and that would be Pat Robertson who said the above.

    Yes even Pat Robertson thinks the Republican party has gone way too far to the right….

    Like

  38. Pangolin says:

    I’m pretty sure they’ve given up on the justification thing. I’ve heard conservative after conservative say “we can’t just give the homeless housing” as if that would somehow lead to the refusal of all people everywhere to do any work whatsoever.

    When you explain that people with inherited wealth sufficient that they not work overwhelmingly seek employment anyway they just look confused. Of course a rich person given millions of dollars would be working; they’re morally superior. OTOH a poor person given $10k in social support will apparently choose to do nothing for the rest of their lives when even the simplest job could double their income.

    I’m still waiting on proof of intelligent life on planet Earth.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: