Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: More Spread the Wealth - (nf)
Message-ID: <1564@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Dec-83 11:54:46 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1564
Posted: Fri Dec 16 11:54:46 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Dec-83 12:42:58 EST
References: <612@inmet.UUCP>, <446@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 20

The thing about large government projects is that they are financed through
taxation. So you get to build your bridge, but I have to pay for it, which
means that I don't get to buy the books I would otherwise. Is your bridge
more efficient than a million of us buying books at spreading the wealth?
As long as I don't hoard the money in my mattress (remember that banks invest
their money as well) won't it acheive the same effect?

Anything with a bureacracy is traditionally inefficient, because the cost
of communication is so high that it doesn't get done. Thus your large
bridge project should be worse than if I and five friends got together and
set up a software house with the money that we would otherwise be taxed
for large government project. Moreover, when industries run the very high
risk of being taxed out of existance, the impetus for private industry to
start brave new projects seems to be lost because of the high taxation for
your make-work projects. (I think that you are the person who wanted to
build and unbuild the battleships, if I have gotten you confused, then I am
sorry.)

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura