Journal Entries 1989 - 1990

May 5, 1988

Is abortion murder? If someone feels abortion is wrong, then shouldn't their choice be not to have one, or do they have a moral obligation to prevent others from having one also? If so, how far does that moral linkage stretch? To family members, their state, the nation, the world? In other words, will God punish us for not doing all we can to stop as many abortions as possible? If so, should we pursue this course to the exclusion of all else or will God treat each abortionist or abortionee individually? 

If we do allow abortion, does that cheapen life, making euthanasia of the sick, the elderly or the inconvenient easier? 

The argument that makes me sick is the economic one, particularly among middle class. People who opt for a microwave, a VCR or a later model car versus a third child. If all the effort expended on both sides of the argument were to be focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies, more abortions would be prevented than any law that could be enacted, which brings me to the pro-choice argument for reproductive freedom. What about prophylaxis and contraception? Or are they incapable of proactive thought and simply capable of reactive correction? I give them more credit than that.

May 6, 1989

Visited Plaza Frontenac (a high-end shopping center) today. No matter how wealthy I may become, I never want to be like these people. They should be made to drive around North Saint Louis to see how some people live. What's sad is that if these people are conservative, they feel that the plight of the poor is the fault of the poor so "don't ask me to help," while if they're liberal, they say, "take a percentage of my pay in taxes to help them so I can sleep with a clear conscience." I'm sorry, but neither approach is correct, nor sufficient, I know I'm guilty of not doing my part, but admitting so does not absolve me of said guilt. What do we do to resolve the situation in the inner city?

May 7, 1989

Pundits wonder why we split our vote, resulting in a republican president, but a democratic congress, the reason is simple - Democrats promise jobs, programs and contracts to their constituents (more than their share of the pie, so to speak). Republicans promise to keep a lid on such giveaways. Hence, people vote to get their goodies from congress, but send a Republican to the White House to make sure the rest of the country doesn't get theirs.

May 8, 1989

If politicians and sociologists want to address our problems, they must stop dealing strictly in absolutes, particularly as they pertain to groups of people. Instead, they must realize that behavior is spread along a bell curve from one extreme to another. For example, economically, people are motivated to different degrees. Some are simply driven to succeed no matter what the payoff, while others could not care less about success so long as they get their sustenance. The vast majority of people lie somewhere in between. By the same token, some people will be enticed to remain home with a very simple subsidy., i.e., welfare, while others will require larger subsidies in order to give up their occupations. A graphic representation of this phenomenon would be as follows. The number of people who would quit on the y- axis and the amount of the Subsidy on the x-axis. The graph shows a standard bell curve,  with fat tails at both ends. 

Obviously, unemployment becomes more attractive to greater numbers, as the dole grows larger as people leave their jobs however, output shrinks accordingly, leaving more dollars chasing after fewer goods. The resulting inflation will reduce the purchasing power of the government subsidies, forcing people to go back to work or demand a greater Subsidy from the government. Given the growth in dependence on, not to mention expectation of, government support, this second scenario seems very likely. 

What this example also points out is that government handouts do not improve the lot of the lower class, but simply encourage reduced total output (GNP),thereby reducing the total material wealth of the general population. 

The key is to provide opportunity, education and motivation to work (hence produce) while sustaining those who can't work without enticing workers to leave their jobs.

The scenario painted above (rising unemployment and inflation) defines stagflation, much like we had throughout the 70s. Part of this was due to shocks and commodity markets (Oils, minerals and such), but is it not possible that part would be attributed to the Subsidy phenomena.

To give credence to Subsidy Theory, let's look at agriculture with various government subsidies given to farmers to reduce production, why do some farmers continue to produce? Some do so because they can make more by producing than by accepting government handouts. Others will produce simply because they feel obligated to do so. The net result of the subsidies, however (the stated goal in fact), is reduced output and higher prices. Is it not safe to assume that public welfare would have the same net result, though the stated goal is to help those in need? In reality, we are subsidizing reduced output, and hence higher prices. This explains why. Market principles, free of government intervention will create the greatest national wealth. It is then incumbent upon management to see that this wealth is distributed fairly, according to each person's ability, not each person's needs - the direct opposite of Marx. It is only when management is derelict in this duty or in providing unfair or unsafe work conditions that labor unions become a necessity. I am sure that I will be using bell curve phenomenon to describe other events as we fill these pages.