Bill, I love your writing, whatever the discipline!
Mike Mermel
···
On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:00 AM, CSGNET automatic digest system wrote:
There are 6 messages totalling 703 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. The problem of finances (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:41:08 -0700
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Subject: The problem of finances
[From Bill Powers (2012.01.29.0935 MST)]
Just some thoughts.
For years I'm been having uneasy thoughts about the financial system,
and in general about the role of money in the economy. When people
talk about the invention of money and the advantages it confers on
the system, I believe they are making sense. Money enables everyone
to trade services and goods for all kinds of goods and services,
instead of just those few available locally. It gives us a common
scale for comparing values of very different goods and services. I'm
sure that a person more familiar with this subject could offer many
more ways in which money provides advantages.
In macroeconomics, one fact that seems to be accepted by people in
many different positions is that there is a circular flow of money in
one direction, and goods and services in the opposite direction. In a
healthy economy, this flow is unimpeded and precisely balanced. In
their role as workers and managers, people and institutions receive
money for their work from individual or institutional producers of
goods and services. As consumers, they spend what they receive in
order to buy and consume -- now or in the future -- the entire
product of their own labors. Enough money must be available to
balance the equations in both directions.
Circulating money, therefore, serves as a kind of lubricant for
continuous and uninterrupted trade. It's here to stay.
However, money as currently conceived and used is also a point of
vulnerability in any economic system. A store of money is a store of
buying power, a claim on future goods and services. It's something
that can be traded as a commodity, as any asset can be traded. That
idea probably followed the invention of money very quickly if not instantly.
If money becomes a commodity, the role of money changes. We have to
ask, what is now the measure of relative value? I think it boils down
to control. Possession of money is valuable to the degree that it
allows a person to control what happens to that person. That is
essentially the same measure by which, ultimately, we judge the value
of all goods and services.
Since money can be traded for any kind of good or service, it is an
especially potent means for gaining control. It can be valued higher
than any particular good or service. Those who see it that way,
therefore, have good reason to acquire as much of this valuable
commodity as they can. And therein lies the vulnerability of the system.
Those who use goods and services as a means of acquiring as much
money as possible are not interested in using the money right now to
purchase other goods and services. They use the money to purchase
control, now and in the future. They can use the money without
spending it by investing it or lending it at interest, which gives
them more money in the future without involving a trade for any goods
or services, and at the same time gives them power and influence even
without being spent. The promise of spending it, or maintenance of a
symbolic low level of spending, is enough.
Acquiring more money becomes an end in itself, the relationship of
money to goods and services fading into the background. The value of
money itself is in enhancing control rather than maintenance and
improvement of life, and that becomes the paramount use of it. The
role of money as a lubricant for trade becomes secondary or is
ignored altogether.
This change results in disrupting the precise balance of the circular
flow of money. The bookkeeping of transactions no longer balances,
because instead of continuing the flow, the money is siphoned off
into ever-increasing private stores that are held or invested for
monetary gain instead of being spent and sent back into circulation.
And perhaps even more important, this siphoned-off money is used to
increase the control by the people with the most money of the people
with less of it. Money buys laws and lawmakers, legal and paralegal
enforcers, self-serving loyalty and support from those with less
money who also want more of it. Money buys the power to make the rules.
The love of money, it has been said, is the root of all evil. Perhaps
"all" is an exaggeration, but the growth of a money-oriented society
is also the growth of a power and control-of-others oriented society,
a society that has been persuaded to admire the causes of its own
eventual downfall.
The cure for this situation is obvious: ban "gaming the system" for
the sole purpose of acquiring money and power. A ban is not strictly
necessary, but it will prevent an enormous amount of suffering
compared to simply letting this inherently-flawed approach to money
play out to its logical conclusion. This does not mean banning the
management of large amounts of money, a necessary function that
requires the same level of knowledge and skill that many other
important jobs require. It just means not skimming, using for private
gain part of the money being managed. It means viewing the
accumulation of private fortunes as embezzlement of money that is
needed by everyone, not just a few.
Of course such a reform would be very difficult to put into practice:
money also buys protection against those who rock the boat. And the
competitive attitudes that the acquisitional society develops will
not disappear overnight. It will take a long time for admiration of
the "rags to riches" saga to turn into distaste, and for some degree
of humane concern for the losers of competitions to start appearing.
Best,
Bill P.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:46:50 -0700
From: Fred Nickols <fred@NICKOLS.US>
Subject: Re: The problem of finances
[From Fred Nickols (2012.01.29.1246 AZT)]
Bill:
I can sum up my reactions to your post in a single word: "Neat!"
Fred Nickols
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 11:41 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: The problem of finances[From Bill Powers (2012.01.29.0935 MST)]
Just some thoughts.
For years I'm been having uneasy thoughts about the financial system, and
in
general about the role of money in the economy. When people talk about
the invention of money and the advantages it confers on the system, I
believe they are making sense. Money enables everyone to trade services
and goods for all kinds of goods and services, instead of just those few
available locally. It gives us a common scale for comparing values of very
different goods and services. I'm sure that a person more familiar with
this
subject could offer many more ways in which money provides advantages.
In macroeconomics, one fact that seems to be accepted by people in many
different positions is that there is a circular flow of money in one
direction,
and goods and services in the opposite direction. In a healthy economy,
this
flow is unimpeded and precisely balanced. In their role as workers and
managers, people and institutions receive money for their work from
individual or institutional producers of goods and services. As consumers,
they spend what they receive in order to buy and consume -- now or in the
future -- the entire product of their own labors. Enough money must be
available to balance the equations in both directions.Circulating money, therefore, serves as a kind of lubricant for continuous
and
uninterrupted trade. It's here to stay.
However, money as currently conceived and used is also a point of
vulnerability in any economic system. A store of money is a store of
buying
power, a claim on future goods and services. It's something that can be
traded as a commodity, as any asset can be traded. That idea probably
followed the invention of money very quickly if not instantly.If money becomes a commodity, the role of money changes. We have to ask,
what is now the measure of relative value? I think it boils down to
control.
Possession of money is valuable to the degree that it allows a person to
control what happens to that person. That is essentially the same measure
by which, ultimately, we judge the value of all goods and services.Since money can be traded for any kind of good or service, it is an
especially
potent means for gaining control. It can be valued higher than any
particular
good or service. Those who see it that way, therefore, have good reason to
acquire as much of this valuable commodity as they can. And therein lies
the
vulnerability of the system.
Those who use goods and services as a means of acquiring as much money as
possible are not interested in using the money right now to purchase other
goods and services. They use the money to purchase control, now and in the
future. They can use the money without spending it by investing it or
lending
it at interest, which gives them more money in the future without
involving a
trade for any goods or services, and at the same time gives them power and
influence even without being spent. The promise of spending it, or
maintenance of a symbolic low level of spending, is enough.Acquiring more money becomes an end in itself, the relationship of money
to goods and services fading into the background. The value of money
itself
is in enhancing control rather than maintenance and improvement of life,
and that becomes the paramount use of it. The role of money as a lubricant
for trade becomes secondary or is ignored altogether.This change results in disrupting the precise balance of the circular flow
of
money. The bookkeeping of transactions no longer balances, because
instead of continuing the flow, the money is siphoned off into ever-
increasing private stores that are held or invested for monetary gain
instead
of being spent and sent back into circulation.
And perhaps even more important, this siphoned-off money is used to
increase the control by the people with the most money of the people with
less of it. Money buys laws and lawmakers, legal and paralegal enforcers,
self-serving loyalty and support from those with less money who also want
more of it. Money buys the power to make the rules.The love of money, it has been said, is the root of all evil. Perhaps
"all" is an
exaggeration, but the growth of a money-oriented society is also the
growth
of a power and control-of-others oriented society, a society that has been
persuaded to admire the causes of its own eventual downfall.The cure for this situation is obvious: ban "gaming the system" for the
sole
purpose of acquiring money and power. A ban is not strictly necessary, but
it
will prevent an enormous amount of suffering compared to simply letting
this inherently-flawed approach to money play out to its logical
conclusion.
This does not mean banning the management of large amounts of money, a
necessary function that requires the same level of knowledge and skill
that
many other important jobs require. It just means not skimming, using for
private gain part of the money being managed. It means viewing the
accumulation of private fortunes as embezzlement of money that is needed
by everyone, not just a few.Of course such a reform would be very difficult to put into practice:
money also buys protection against those who rock the boat. And the
competitive attitudes that the acquisitional society develops will not
disappear overnight. It will take a long time for admiration of the "rags
to
riches" saga to turn into distaste, and for some degree of humane concern
for the losers of competitions to start appearing.Best,
Bill P.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:28:05 -0700
From: Martin Lewitt <mlewitt@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: The problem of finances
[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 29 13:21 MST]
A good way to tax those who hoard money is to print it. It probably
wouldn't hit the people you think. It is a myth that the rich have
much money, most have stocks, bonds, capital equipment and other
property. Only the cash, bonds, CDs, checking accounts, demand deposits
and other dollar denominated assets would be hit by the "tax" of
printing money. The benefit of newly "printed" money flows to those
that get first access to it. Why shouldn't that be the people instead
of whomever is getting it now?
-- Martin L
On 1/29/2012 11:41 AM, Bill Powers wrote:
[From Bill Powers (2012.01.29.0935 MST)]
Just some thoughts.
For years I'm been having uneasy thoughts about the financial system,
and in general about the role of money in the economy. When people
talk about the invention of money and the advantages it confers on the
system, I believe they are making sense. Money enables everyone to
trade services and goods for all kinds of goods and services, instead
of just those few available locally. It gives us a common scale for
comparing values of very different goods and services. I'm sure that a
person more familiar with this subject could offer many more ways in
which money provides advantages.In macroeconomics, one fact that seems to be accepted by people in
many different positions is that there is a circular flow of money in
one direction, and goods and services in the opposite direction. In a
healthy economy, this flow is unimpeded and precisely balanced. In
their role as workers and managers, people and institutions receive
money for their work from individual or institutional producers of
goods and services. As consumers, they spend what they receive in
order to buy and consume -- now or in the future -- the entire product
of their own labors. Enough money must be available to balance the
equations in both directions.Circulating money, therefore, serves as a kind of lubricant for
continuous and uninterrupted trade. It's here to stay.However, money as currently conceived and used is also a point of
vulnerability in any economic system. A store of money is a store of
buying power, a claim on future goods and services. It's something
that can be traded as a commodity, as any asset can be traded. That
idea probably followed the invention of money very quickly if not
instantly.If money becomes a commodity, the role of money changes. We have to
ask, what is now the measure of relative value? I think it boils down
to control. Possession of money is valuable to the degree that it
allows a person to control what happens to that person. That is
essentially the same measure by which, ultimately, we judge the value
of all goods and services.Since money can be traded for any kind of good or service, it is an
especially potent means for gaining control. It can be valued higher
than any particular good or service. Those who see it that way,
therefore, have good reason to acquire as much of this valuable
commodity as they can. And therein lies the vulnerability of the system.Those who use goods and services as a means of acquiring as much money
as possible are not interested in using the money right now to
purchase other goods and services. They use the money to purchase
control, now and in the future. They can use the money without
spending it by investing it or lending it at interest, which gives
them more money in the future without involving a trade for any goods
or services, and at the same time gives them power and influence even
without being spent. The promise of spending it, or maintenance of a
symbolic low level of spending, is enough.Acquiring more money becomes an end in itself, the relationship of
money to goods and services fading into the background. The value of
money itself is in enhancing control rather than maintenance and
improvement of life, and that becomes the paramount use of it. The
role of money as a lubricant for trade becomes secondary or is ignored
altogether.This change results in disrupting the precise balance of the circular
flow of money. The bookkeeping of transactions no longer balances,
because instead of continuing the flow, the money is siphoned off into
ever-increasing private stores that are held or invested for monetary
gain instead of being spent and sent back into circulation.And perhaps even more important, this siphoned-off money is used to
increase the control by the people with the most money of the people
with less of it. Money buys laws and lawmakers, legal and paralegal
enforcers, self-serving loyalty and support from those with less money
who also want more of it. Money buys the power to make the rules.The love of money, it has been said, is the root of all evil. Perhaps
"all" is an exaggeration, but the growth of a money-oriented society
is also the growth of a power and control-of-others oriented society,
a society that has been persuaded to admire the causes of its own
eventual downfall.The cure for this situation is obvious: ban "gaming the system" for
the sole purpose of acquiring money and power. A ban is not strictly
necessary, but it will prevent an enormous amount of suffering
compared to simply letting this inherently-flawed approach to money
play out to its logical conclusion. This does not mean banning the
management of large amounts of money, a necessary function that
requires the same level of knowledge and skill that many other
important jobs require. It just means not skimming, using for private
gain part of the money being managed. It means viewing the
accumulation of private fortunes as embezzlement of money that is
needed by everyone, not just a few.Of course such a reform would be very difficult to put into practice:
money also buys protection against those who rock the boat. And the
competitive attitudes that the acquisitional society develops will not
disappear overnight. It will take a long time for admiration of the
"rags to riches" saga to turn into distaste, and for some degree of
humane concern for the losers of competitions to start appearing.Best,
Bill P.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:42:34 -0700
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Subject: Re: The problem of finances
[From Bill Powers (2012.01.29.1600 MST)]
Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 29 13:21 MST --
ML: A good way to tax those who hoard money is to print it. It
probably wouldn't hit the people you think. It is a myth that the
rich have much money, most have stocks, bonds, capital equipment and
other property. Only the cash, bonds, CDs, checking accounts,
demand deposits and other dollar denominated assets would be hit by
the "tax" of printing money.
BP: What the rich have is a huge amount of money that they control
and which they can use for their own private purposes. Of course they
avoid paying taxes on most of it by holding it through corporations
that they control. However, any time they need a large amount of
cash, it is easily available -- often just by telling the finance
department to cut a check in such a way that it can be classed as a
business expense. A fact-finding tour to Bali, for example.
ML: The benefit of newly "printed" money flows to those that get
first access to it. Why shouldn't that be the people instead of
whomever is getting it now?
BP: Several reasons, the first of which is that the rich would never
allow you actually to do that. Can you imagine getting such a bill
through today's congress? Congressmen are not hired by the rich to
devalue the portfolios of those who employ them; quite the opposite.
The second reason is more practical. It is never a good idea to
institute an arbitrary change in any variable of a large system. The
intended effect will be just one of many effects if it occurs, and
most of the other effects will cause problems. The money supply has
to remain balanced with economic transactions at all times if the
system as a whole is to function properly. Each buyer must receive
enough in earnings to pay for what is bought or contracted for, and
each supplier must be paid enough for what is received to cover all
costs including raw materials, labor, production equipment,
depreciation, distribution, and profits (profit is a cost to a
corporation, though it is income for the owners). Inventories must
normally remain constant, sales equalling production. A certain
amount of money must be allowed to accumulate in various accounts to
average out good and bad times, but once the required amount has been
saved, savings have to remain essentially constant, too, or change
only as the size of the economy changes.
All these pontificial pronouncements, by the way, are simply what
I've learned from trying to make economic models run for more than a
few minutes at a time without crashing.
What's generally missing in existing economic systems is any
consideration of system concepts. We have to learn that what is best
for me starts with what is best for everyone including me. Each
person who seeks only what is best for himself is an enemy of the
system in which everyone has a stake. It's necessary to get outside
oneself far enough to see that the whole system has to work, or none
of it will work right. There do not seem to be many people in 2012
who have seen that, and there are particularly few among those who
argue about economics.
Best,
Bill P.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:04:27 -0600
From: Shannon Williams <verbingle@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: The problem of finances
Hi Bill,=20
I would like to post this essay as a note on my Facebook page. Would that b=
e ok? I love it.=20
Thanks,
Shannon
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET> wrote:
[=46rom Bill Powers (2012.01.29.0935 MST)]
=20
Just some thoughts.
=20
For years I'm been having uneasy thoughts about the financial system, and i=
n general about the role of money in the economy. When people talk about the=
invention of money and the advantages it confers on the system, I believe t=
hey are making sense. Money enables everyone to trade services and goods for=
all kinds of goods and services, instead of just those few available locall=
y. It gives us a common scale for comparing values of very different goods a=
nd services. I'm sure that a person more familiar with this subject could of=
fer many more ways in which money provides advantages.
=20
In macroeconomics, one fact that seems to be accepted by people in many di=
fferent positions is that there is a circular flow of money in one direction=
, and goods and services in the opposite direction. In a healthy economy, th=
is flow is unimpeded and precisely balanced. In their role as workers and ma=
nagers, people and institutions receive money for their work from individual=
or institutional producers of goods and services. As consumers, they spend w=
hat they receive in order to buy and consume -- now or in the future -- the e=
ntire product of their own labors. Enough money must be available to balance=
the equations in both directions.
=20
Circulating money, therefore, serves as a kind of lubricant for continuous=
and uninterrupted trade. It's here to stay.
=20
However, money as currently conceived and used is also a point of vulnerab=
ility in any economic system. A store of money is a store of buying power, a=
claim on future goods and services. It's something that can be traded as a c=
ommodity, as any asset can be traded. That idea probably followed the invent=
ion of money very quickly if not instantly.
=20
If money becomes a commodity, the role of money changes. We have to ask, w=
hat is now the measure of relative value? I think it boils down to control. P=
ossession of money is valuable to the degree that it allows a person to cont=
rol what happens to that person. That is essentially the same measure by whi=
ch, ultimately, we judge the value of all goods and services.
=20
Since money can be traded for any kind of good or service, it is an especi=
ally potent means for gaining control. It can be valued higher than any part=
icular good or service. Those who see it that way, therefore, have good reas=
on to acquire as much of this valuable commodity as they can. And therein li=
es the vulnerability of the system.
=20
Those who use goods and services as a means of acquiring as much money as p=
ossible are not interested in using the money right now to purchase other go=
ods and services. They use the money to purchase control, now and in the fut=
ure. They can use the money without spending it by investing it or lending i=
t at interest, which gives them more money in the future without involving a=
trade for any goods or services, and at the same time gives them power and i=
nfluence even without being spent. The promise of spending it, or maintenanc=
e of a symbolic low level of spending, is enough.
=20
Acquiring more money becomes an end in itself, the relationship of money t=
o goods and services fading into the background. The value of money itself i=
s in enhancing control rather than maintenance and improvement of life, and t=
hat becomes the paramount use of it. The role of money as a lubricant for tr=
ade becomes secondary or is ignored altogether.
=20
This change results in disrupting the precise balance of the circular flow=
of money. The bookkeeping of transactions no longer balances, because inst=
ead of continuing the flow, the money is siphoned off into ever-increasing p=
rivate stores that are held or invested for monetary gain instead of being s=
pent and sent back into circulation.
=20
And perhaps even more important, this siphoned-off money is used to increa=
se the control by the people with the most money of the people with less of i=
t. Money buys laws and lawmakers, legal and paralegal enforcers, self-servin=
g loyalty and support from those with less money who also want more of it. M=
oney buys the power to make the rules.
=20
The love of money, it has been said, is the root of all evil. Perhaps "all=
" is an exaggeration, but the growth of a money-oriented society is also the=
growth of a power and control-of-others oriented society, a society that ha=
s been persuaded to admire the causes of its own eventual downfall.
=20
The cure for this situation is obvious: ban "gaming the system" for the so=
le purpose of acquiring money and power. A ban is not strictly necessary, bu=
t it will prevent an enormous amount of suffering compared to simply letting=
this inherently-flawed approach to money play out to its logical conclusion=
. This does not mean banning the management of large amounts of money, a nec=
essary function that requires the same level of knowledge and skill that man=
y other important jobs require. It just means not skimming, using for privat=
e gain part of the money being managed. It means viewing the accumulation of=
private fortunes as embezzlement of money that is needed by everyone, not j=
ust a few.
=20
Of course such a reform would be very difficult to put into practice: mone=
y also buys protection against those who rock the boat. And the competitive a=
ttitudes that the acquisitional society develops will not disappear overnigh=
t. It will take a long time for admiration of the "rags to riches" saga to t=
urn into distaste, and for some degree of humane concern for the losers of c=
ompetitions to start appearing.
=20
Best,
=20
Bill P.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:40:31 -0700
From: Martin Lewitt <mlewitt@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: The problem of finances
[Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 29 2330 MST]
On 1/29/2012 4:42 PM, Bill Powers wrote:
[From Bill Powers (2012.01.29.1600 MST)]
Martin Lewitt 2012 Jan 29 13:21 MST --
ML: A good way to tax those who hoard money is to print it. It
probably wouldn't hit the people you think. It is a myth that the
rich have much money, most have stocks, bonds, capital equipment and
other property. Only the cash, bonds, CDs, checking accounts, demand
deposits and other dollar denominated assets would be hit by the
"tax" of printing money.BP: What the rich have is a huge amount of money that they control and
which they can use for their own private purposes. Of course they
avoid paying taxes on most of it by holding it through corporations
that they control. However, any time they need a large amount of cash,
it is easily available -- often just by telling the finance department
to cut a check in such a way that it can be classed as a business
expense. A fact-finding tour to Bali, for example.
In any well run business only a fraction of wealth is kept liquid as
working capital. It is no doubt that the rich are wealthy and powerful
and have ready access to money, but that does not support your
hypothesis about their unwillingness to spend taking money out of
circulation.
ML: The benefit of newly "printed" money flows to those that get
first access to it. Why shouldn't that be the people instead of
whomever is getting it now?BP: Several reasons, the first of which is that the rich would never
allow you actually to do that. Can you imagine getting such a bill
through today's congress? Congressmen are not hired by the rich to
devalue the portfolios of those who employ them; quite the opposite.
You are assuming their portfolios are dollar denominated, real wealth
like stock ownership, land and capital equipment does not go down when
dollars are printed. It is China or Japan's portfolio of treasuries
which goes down and even they might welcome 2 to 3 percent devaluing of
their portfolio if the US engine of economic growth jump starts the
global economy. There is a double populist incentive for Congressmen
to put the Federal Reserve into practice of printing money directly to
the people: 1) printing to the people 2) economic hedgemony with China,
Japan and others
Of course it doesn't hurt that our own economy gets lubricated with
money in the hands of people able to locally optimized better than
central planners.
The second reason is more practical. It is never a good idea to
institute an arbitrary change in any variable of a large system. The
intended effect will be just one of many effects if it occurs, and
most of the other effects will cause problems. The money supply has to
remain balanced with economic transactions at all times if the system
as a whole is to function properly. Each buyer must receive enough in
earnings to pay for what is bought or contracted for, and each
supplier must be paid enough for what is received to cover all costs
including raw materials, labor, production equipment, depreciation,
distribution, and profits (profit is a cost to a corporation, though
it is income for the owners). Inventories must normally remain
constant, sales equalling production. A certain amount of money must
be allowed to accumulate in various accounts to average out good and
bad times, but once the required amount has been saved, savings have
to remain essentially constant, too, or change only as the size of the
economy changes.
The current systems was prone to such changes, as when $7 to $15
trillion disappeared under the collapse of the pyramid of leverage
during the recent crisis.
All these pontificial pronouncements, by the way, are simply what I've
learned from trying to make economic models run for more than a few
minutes at a time without crashing.
Perhaps you should try modest 2 to 3% inflation, and locally intelligent
agents acting strategically in their own interest in response to price
signals.
What's generally missing in existing economic systems is any
consideration of system concepts. We have to learn that what is best
for me starts with what is best for everyone including me. Each person
who seeks only what is best for himself is an enemy of the system in
which everyone has a stake. It's necessary to get outside oneself far
enough to see that the whole system has to work, or none of it will
work right. There do not seem to be many people in 2012 who have seen
that, and there are particularly few among those who argue about
economics.
I'm your huckleberry. A system which thinks it knows what is best for
everybody and assumes it isn't their individual self interest is deluded
about human nature. As I recently pointed out to a wall street occupy
buddy who was planning to commemorate his commitment to the cause with a
tattoo, "Central planners usually don't have tattoo parlors high on
their list of priorities." And I can quote me on that!
-- regards,
Martin L
Best,
Bill P.
------------------------------
End of CSGNET Digest - 27 Jan 2012 to 30 Jan 2012 (#2012-8)
***********************************************************