Windfall

“Lucky you! You just won the lottery and your windfall will make life very comfortable for you and your family. A windfall is a crazy bit of unexpected good fortune. First used in the fifteenth century, the word windfall originally referred to fruit that the wind blew from the trees.”

I just found that definition on line. I was looking for it because I wanted to confirm my understanding of the word. It seems only to have positive connotations, though it derives from damage to a tree. And many trees have suffered from all sorts of insults since the fifteenth century.

I heard yesterday that a woman was suing the city of New York because a tree fell on her and caused significant injury. It's a real tragedy and brings up the question of what is an accident or an Act of G-d and what is someone's responsibility. There were times when the former concept – an accident – was accepted as a reality, an unavoidable fact of life, but those days have passed. Now everything is someone's fault and the deeper his pockets the better. A falling tree can provide a real windfall, especially if its owner has a big bankroll.

Let me provide a little context:

According to The Associated Press, “[Hurricane] Harvey has so far killed at least 70 people who drowned in floods, got crushed by trees and died during power outages -- a surprisingly low toll that experts say reflects heeded warnings, swift action by first responders and volunteers, and no small amount of luck. … In 2005, Hurricane Katrina claimed more than 1,800 lives. Hurricane Ike was blamed for at least 20 deaths after hitting the Texas coast in 2008.”

Other reports tell us that the cost of the hurricane may be as much as $11 billion. That's an early estimate and it will certainly be many times higher, but no one struck by a tree is suing the United States and increasing the cost.

The tree in this case was in Central Park which is under the control of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. Its budget for 2017 was $480 million. “According to the Parks Department, street trees in New York City are pruned every 15 years; in the past, each tree was pruned on average every 7 years. In 2012, the tree trimming budget was $1.45 million per year … In 2013 the Parks Department had fewer than 100 climbers and pruners to maintain all of the City’s 2.5 million trees.” (That note comes from ekilaw.com, a law firm soliciting suits related to NYC tree damage – damage by trees, not to them .)

Acknowledging those facts, it's interesting to note that the woman is suing for $200 million. That's nearly 42% of the Parks Department's entire 2017 budget. The stated goal is to force the city to take better care of its trees. But I wonder if the possibility of a windfall wasn't part of the calculus in embarking on this noble crusade.

Many were killed by falling trees during Hurricane Harvey, and in other storms. No one was killed by this incident which involved one of two and a half million trees. Was it an accident or a result of negligence?

Should taxpayers bear any burden, especially one of this size, for they provide the contents of the city's “deep pockets?” The results were certainly tragic, but concern for the victim, by itself, doesn't justify a lawsuit and payoff. And if the department's budget for tree trimming is one and a half million dollars, even if is decided that the department was at fault for this accident, a suit for $200 million seems disproportionate.

Companies have been put out of business or damaged badly by this kind of vindictive lawsuit. While the suit is presented as a public service, I wonder how often it is simply viewed as a big money maker – a windfall for plaintiff and lawyer alike. And a sympathetic jury is manipulated into facilitating what some may view as extortion. (And lawsuits are sometimes used to delay or destroy projects often because of the ideology of the plaintiff, not the facts. Pier 55 in New York – a $250 million dollar project approved by both the public and political leaders – was stopped after six years of lawsuits by a few people. I read about it today.)

Life doesn't come with a guarantee. It has risks to which we're all subject. There are those guilty of acts that cause harm, but the public shouldn't always be held responsible for unavoidable acts and accidents. (Is the city to blame if someone is murdered within its boundaries?) Notwithstanding the view that it's invariably “someone's fault,” we can't always ensure happy lives or compensation for everything viewed as actionable by a lawyer.

We waste enough money on the whims of our “representatives.” We needn't do it on the whines of all our citizens and their lawyers. Their windfalls are often our losses. A windfall was originally an unexpected benefit. Now it's a business.

September 14, 2017

Various Thoughts XIV

More thought for food. If you hunger for ideas to chew on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is a drug crisis in our country. (Full disclosure – I don't use them though I favor drug legalization, but I've explored that issue before, and I probably will again.) Many of our youth are dying from overdoses, and it has become a standard practice to administer Narcan whenever there is concern about such a possibility.

In most states, drug sales and use are illegal. Yet we offer free treatment by the government, insurance plans, and entrepreneurs without penalty. We pay for the treatment of those who have engaged in illegal behavior. There are other forms of illegal behavior. Should we pay those who engage in them too?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We're always competing. We always want to keep up with the Joneses. In fact we want to be better than they. Men compete and women compete, though the “playing fields” may differ. We're determined to be one up on everyone else. We want to be best. Even when we give charity we want to be recognized for it, whether by a plaque attesting to our generosity, public acknowledgment of our gift, a ceremony, or some other way to prove that we did better than the others. And there are many who seek to be known and admired for he help they give to the needy. For them, “it's all about me.” Those they help are just the subjects they use to glorify themselves and show their superiority to those who aren't “good” like them.

But there are a few who choose to be the best while not competing for honor. They are the anonymous givers and those who do good deeds because that's the right thing to do. Often they do such things because they feel good from doing them, and it does not matter what others do or what others know about what they've done. There is “right” and “wrong” and they get satisfaction out of doing right. Not like those who do right for honor among their friends, but simply because it is right. Some people, of course, compete to do right more conspicuously or grandly than everybody else, but they do it for its own sake. Doing true good should be, and is, instinctual, and most of the principles are the same in all societies – perhaps it's in the DNA of all people. It functions irrespective of other beliefs.

For some, however, the desire to do “good” is actually a desire to follow religious teachings. Their goal is to follow the the commandments of their Creator. Doing so is superior to simply doing good because it feels good. When they follow the commandments they are competing with no one else. They are showing G-d that obedience is more important than feeling good. And, since G-d's commandments are good, and are not done in reaction to the acts of others or competition with them, the acts of these “saints” demonstrates both obedience and goodness. They're not better than everyone else. They're not competing with everyone else – they're competing with impulses within themselves. Impulses not to do what is good. In Judaism it is called yetzer hara, “the evil impulse.” And they have won.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let's face it. Bill Gates and his ilk have too much money. Worse, there are many rich corporations that pay their executives obscene amounts for directing their antics while they accumulate power over their workers and over our laws and those of other countries. And because those organizations make money for their hosts, everyone is willing to overlook their faults. Yet these companies may affect foreign policy and tax law, bending it to their wishes or locating wherever it is in their economic interests to do so.

In some industries the profits are very high, and we pay for them. But what else can we do? What else should we do? While we curse their manufacturers, we pay exorbitant prices for sneakers, electronics, and other non-necessities. Life-style, not need, governs our behavior, yet we vilify those who provide for the life-style we seek.

It's not fair, but we've found a way to live with it while we complain. What's the answer? Many localities have laws against usury. They limit the profit on loans. And programs like Medicare cap the payments for various procedures. Of course there are cheaters who game the system, but for those observing the law there are income limits.

Can the same be done with corporations? Can their actions and their profits be limited by law? Would the lack of a reserve from profitable products have a negative impact on the development of new products which are not yet profitable? Would there be a diminished incentive for everyone and a decrease in the speed of progress? Would that be a good thing? Is the weakening of organizations that are more powerful than many nations worth the benefits that would accrue from their weakening?

Wouldn't it be great if we could limit the power of those companies without limiting their incentive?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chew away.

August 13, 2017

Deep Pockets

If there's one thing that illustrates the similarity between capitalism and socialism it's “deep pockets.” Clearly that requires some elaboration, and the best place to start is with a definition and explanation.

The term usually refers to a party that is well endowed – fiscally, not physically. It may be an individual or a commercial enterprise, but it's one with a lot of money. So the term indicates someone or something that has its “pockets” filled, or even overflowing.

Whoever has deep pockets, therefore, is a target for someone wanting the money. He's rich. Probably one of the 1%. So it is someone (or some organization) we hate, and about whom we feel no guilt when trying to obtain some of his (her, its) funds. It may be in the form of an unwarranted or inflated insurance claim, a legal action, or the call for a handout. Whatever it is, you pay. And whoever is nominally billed doesn't really matter – you pay, one way or another.

One of the most publicized forms is by law suit, or the threat of one. A claim is made against a(n individual or a) large corporation – one that is very rich – and whether the claim is or is not legitimate is irrelevant. The cheapest way for the corporation to make the problem disappear, and to minimize the negative publicity, is to negotiate with whoever is suing – and that means with the legal firm that is handling the claim (as it has done many times before with similar justified or unjustified claims). A moderately large settlement with the plaintiff, or a huge one with the “class,” can usually be arranged to end the unpleasantness quickly. Even if the claim has no merit, it is usually cheaper to settle than to fight and risk a hostile press and public.

That's especially true since we live in a capitalist system, and the cost of the settlement is incorporated into the cost of production, so prices rise. After all, the stockholders shouldn't be made to suffer. Even if the claim is legitimate, the costs are passed on (to you) after a scapegoat is found – usually a low-level employee who can't fight back. No executive is ever considered responsible unless the publicity or the political exposure requires it. And the company will get back the costs anyway. They'll raise their rates and charges, and the price of the settlement will actually be split among members of the population – including you. The company is in business to make money, and they'll do so by passing on the costs to the consumer. Cough it up. You need them.

There are occasions, however, when a case goes to trial and a congenial jury can be made to identify and sympathize with the plaintiff's plight, although that may have nothing to do with the claim. There are occasions when such a jury will decree large enough verdicts – both “compensatory” and punitive – to bankrupt the company. Which means that a product or service is no longer available to you and the remaining companies control more of the market. It's inconvenient, but that's fair repayment for all the “suffering” that the plaintiff has endured. You'll certainly be sympathetic, even if you suffer because of it. After all, it could have been you.

And if it is you, all the better. You'll become rich and have your own deep pockets if you succeed, but you can live with that. After all, you're not one of “them.” You'll never be one of them, one of the 1%. You're just a hard working citizen, indemnified for what you've been through.

The same is true with insurance. Whatever the cost of claims made against the company, they'll eventually be passed on to those buying the protection. It doesn't matter if the claims are justified or not – though the insurer may investigate astronomical or obviously false claims to lower expenses and increase profits. Still you can be sure that the deep pockets will be yours, and, eventually, you'll wind up paying for all those claims.

But, lest you think this is solely a product of capitalism, the same is true in the public sector, though the language is changed a little. We're all sympathetic of the plight of the needy, and we demand that our government help out. They certainly will, and so will the politicians who seek their votes. In a society that provides various kinds of welfare, a society that tries to take from the rich and give to the poor, the deep pockets belong to “the government.” But that's the taxpayer – you – so you wind up paying. (Or your children and grandchildren do.)

“From each according to his means …” So the earnings of the workers are apportioned to those who lack. It's a redistribution of income from the “rich” to the “poor.” Karl Marx was right. It's socialism. We call it generosity, or the provision of services to the poor, or concern for the needy among us. It's the least we can do. We feel good about what we've done. (We do, however, curse the politicians for raising taxes to pay for all the programs we favor.) But whether or not it's “right,” it's socialism.

In short, whether it's capitalism, as exemplified by a “greedy” company, or socialism, in the form of support of “needy” citizens, you fund it. No matter who submits the bill, you wind up paying. The “deep pockets” are inevitably yours, irrespective of the economic system. They have that in common. There's no such thing as a free lunch.




November 3, 2016

If I Were A Rich Man

A certain kind of rich man afflicted with the symptoms of moral dandyism sooner or later comes to the conclusion that it isn't enough merely to make money. He feels obliged to hold views, to espouse causes and elect Presidents, to explain to a trembling world how and why the world went wrong. -Lewis H. Lapham, editor and writer.

Unfortunately, that's not the whole story. Too often he begins to believe that he actually knows something. Something beyond what it was that helped him make (or inherit) money. And others believe it, too. His self-delusion is shared by those yearning to be like him.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes! (From Fiddler on the Roof, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick)

That's the problem. If you're rich, people think you know something, and so do you. And if you're rich you can afford a platform from which to proclaim your message.

That's not the only platform of course. Friends, Romans and countrymen eagerly lend their ears to those whom they admire – very often stars in entertainment, or heroic athletes. For some reason we automatically attribute wisdom to those we idolize, even if for reasons completely unrelated to the issue in question.

What's in a name? Everything. People buy Air Jordans^®; they take beauty advice from super models, and political advice from movie stars. Sometimes a familiar name and an admired personality can attract followers. We're a wannabe society and we imitate those who are rich or beautiful or famous. Sometimes, though not very often, the famous are also wise. Ronald Reagan's popularity won him the governorship of California and, with the experience and platform that office gave him, he moved up to the Presidency, and did reasonably well for our country in that position. Most of the time, however, prominence or stardom is unassociated with good sense. (Think Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, and Dennis Rodman.)

And, while also often lacking good sense, the media control people's thinking on a wide variety of subjects. They have the broadest platform of all, and even though most people claim that they don't trust journalists and the press, their sources of information – right or wrong – sway voters. As do those with loud voices.

We're easily influenced. We may claim to be independent thinkers, but if we hear something often enough and loud enough we believe it. And if what we hear is something we already believe, if our biases are confirmed, we become deaf to counter-arguments, no matter how logical they may be. In a time of dissatisfaction, a populist with a loud voice becomes the spokesman for the disillusioned; and the means for advertising his opinion – money, notoriety, and a loud voice, for example – trump experience, tact, and wisdom. He thinks he has all the answers, and his followers believe him.

And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!

Sheldon Harnick was as much a philosopher as a lyricist. And he was certainly a perceptive viewer of human nature. Hidden in his homily about the situation in eastern Europe so much earlier, he described a danger to American society; indeed, a reality about all societies. It is our assumption that those who succeed – or are believed to have succeeded – know everything, and that we know nothing. But some of those “successes” are the know-nothings. And if we can get beyond our own disillusionment, we can see that.

The Golden Fleece

Thirty or forty years ago – I can't remember precisely because memory and other things go as we age – Senator Proxmire initiated his Golden Fleece Awards. Perhaps it was primarily a publicity gimmick – it certainly attracted a lot of media attention – but he maintained that it was designed to showcase governmental wasting of taxpayer money. And it did that, too. Although there were others (eg the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, the Department of Commerce, and many more) an important source or waste, he felt, was in the area of scientific research. So he “honored” the authors of papers on many important subjects who had received grants from, among other agencies, the National Institute for Mental Health and the Department of Education, for their groundbreaking work. As the Senator put it when discussing one of the studies,

I object to this not only because no one—not even the National Science Foundation—can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I'm sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn't get an answer that anyone would believe. I'm also against it because I don't want the answer.

I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right on top of the things we don't want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.

The media also took note of the awards. A story published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune on August 22, 1975, supplied by the N.Y. Times News Service, and printed under the headline “Stewardesses' Shape Survey Just One Big Bust To Proxmire,” states

WASHINGTON – Uncle Sam has been measuring airline trainees' bosoms, buttocks – and who knows what all else at a cost of $57,800.

It's all supposed to be in the interest of safety, of course. But it caused Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis. – the man who in March discovered a $465,000 federal study on why folks fall in love and called it an “erotic curiosity” – to fly off the handle again. ...

It's important to know that the value of money has gone up nearly four and a half times since 1975, so the latter grant, if made in in 2015, would be $2,118,500. Ya' gotta' love it.

Lest you question the significance of the projects he cited, here are a few listed by Wikipedia. (Don't forget that the amounts listed would be greater in 2015 dollars.)

• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded project for $121,000, on developing "some objective evidence concerning marijuana's effect on sexual arousal by exposing groups of male pot-smokers to pornographic films and measuring their responses by means of sensors attached to their penises.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) for spending $103,000 to compare aggressiveness in sun fish that drink tequila to those that drink gin.
• National Institute For Mental Health (NIMH) for spending $97,000 to study, among other things, what went on in a Peruvian brothel; the researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy.
• Office of Education for spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television.
• United States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire Sauce.
• United States Department of Commerce (Economic Development Administration) for spending $500,000 to build a 10-story replica of the Great Pyramid in Bedford, Indiana. Begun in 1979, the money proved insufficient and the site is currently abandoned.
• United States Department of Defense for a $3,000 study to determine if people in the military should carry umbrellas in the rain.
• United States Department of Justice for conducting a study on why prisoners want to escape.

Why do I bring this all up? It's because I'm one of the subjects in a study of mobility in aging funded (with our tax money) by the National Institute of Health. I just received a holiday newsletter from the program informing me that “... the study is currently in its 5^th year. We measure brain activity and walking at the same time. Our results demonstrate that both brain structure and function have an impact on mobility.” (It only took five years to figure that out.)

Who woulda' thought that the brain controls mobility. I always figured it was Orion. If I only had a brain. In medical school they taught us that we were controlled by the stars, so a study like this is certainly surprising and welcome. Indeed, the research is taking place in the same medical school, so I hope they'll update their curriculum.

Notwithstanding medical school, however, I always though that the brain had something to do with walking. I learned about it from the French Revolution. From what I understand, relatively few people who had been separated from their heads by the guillotine were able to walk after that. There are stories of chickens doing so after their heads were chopped off but that is apparently because the decapitation is too high and some of the brain remains (see http://theweek.com/speedreads/448290/why-chickens-live-heads-cut). The seminal work of ISIS, also suggests a relationship.

However even if the question is only about the effects of aging, I'm not convinced a study is needed. I, and many others, can assure the investigators that you get tired and achy and sometimes forget things. Perhaps I'm selling basic science short, but, at least in their own bragging, they don't always make a very good argument for the use of tax money. If a latter-day Proxmire were to suggest that this project was a boondoggle, I'd be hard put to defend it based on the information I have.

So why do I participate? I think I have a reason but I can't remember it. But I do know that it gives me something to do every now and then.

It's Over

This is part five of a five-part account.  For the full reading please wait until July 13th.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I mentioned earlier, a medical student at Presbyterian played a critical role – though it's hard to deny that he had Divine help. And that set in motion the plan that Fred had worked out.

The first steps were mine. I had to charter a bank. That took much more knowledge than my legal practice provided and I set out on a search for information, but it was available and it wasn't long before I knew the steps involved. It wasn't cheap though. Fortunately I had some “comfortable” friends who loved life and hated their kids. They were ready to take a chance on eternity while sticking it to their spawn. Fred chose the name “Bank of Heaven.” It set the right tone for the venture. He even opened his own account.

In a sense he was a real humanitarian. For him, at least as far as I could determine from what he told me, everyone was equal – rich and poor alike. And they were alike. Rich and poor were invited to open accounts under the following conditions: You had to deposit a certain percentage of your net worth in the bank and that was set arbitrarily at twenty percent, but you could deposit more if you chose. It didn't matter if that was in dollars, pesos, Euros, rupees, or whatever currency you used, and if you were broke the minimum amount was one dollar or its equivalent. And the money you deposited was not refundable under any circumstances while you were alive. In fact, it was given a status outside of your estate and continued as a separate entity in perpetuity. Undeposited money, of course, was part of your estate and went to your heirs.ⁱ

Withdrawals could come at either (or both) of two times – in Heaven so you could get new religious writings on the internet, or when the Messiah came and all earthly pleasures were available. You'd be sorely tempted in Heaven because of an overwhelming desire to learn and because it would speed your ascent to perfection. But whatever you withdrew during your time there would mean that much less to spend when you returned in the days of the Messiah – whenever that would come. As for the account size, it was either what you deposited or, for the poor, an unlimited amount in Heaven, and enough to live comfortably in Messianic times. Since that would last forever, those with ample accounts of their own – those who planned for their future – would seem to risk running out, while the poor would always live in comfort. But, as I said, they were alike. At least ultimately. And when someone's own money ran out he (or she) was on the same terms as the poor, perpetual comfort, but not profligacy.

So budgeting – for those who chose to establish accounts – was a balancing act. How much for the current stay on earth, how much for Heaven, and how much for the initial period of the Messianic times. It was comforting, however, to know that no matter what decisions you made, and no matter how poor you might be now, you would eventually live a comfortable life. Forever.

Anyway, I managed to charter the bank. It wasn't easy. The red tape and regulations were truly prodigious. I somehow suspect that there isn't nearly as much paperwork in Heaven, but I could be wrong. Money turned out to be less of a problem than I had feared. As I said, there were enough rich people who were willing to make the gamble. Of course those who provided the initial funding were promised the addition of their investments, with interest, to their accounts.

That was the next step. Getting people to set up accounts. But that was also easier than I expected. Those in the “middle class” were suspicious of the whole project and very few of them were willing to take the risk. But for the rich, the ones who didn't even know how much they had or how to use it, it was worth the risk. They wouldn't be greatly affected – if they were affected at all – by a twenty percent investment in an eternal future. (The fear of death proved to have much more power than any concerns they may have had about risk.) The poor could usually find a way to get a dollar, and the potential benefit was incalculable.

With each account we set up an internet account (a free one) which those without computers could access at the library. Fred arranged with Bernie for the issuance of OWWW addresses for all participants, and they'd be activated when account-holders died. He had made all the arrangements with his angel friend before he was resuscitated. He did it “just in case” he returned to life, and his work paid off.

And it seems to have paid off as well for some of the account holders. There are now over three million of them. The majority of the solicitation was through newspaper ads and Bernie's invasion of their computers. Most of the depositors are poor, but some of them are very wealthy. And after a few of them died and were in Heaven there were moderately large withdrawals from their accounts. I suspect they were getting books with modern insights.ⁱⁱ It's clear that they were benefiting from their advanced planning. And there's still plenty left for when they come back. Accounts of the poor, and of the living like me, of course, have not been affected. I'll have my chance. And I certainly have less anxiety about that day than I did a few years ago.

In the meantime, Fred's situation has also improved. He gets a small commission on the withdrawals. It's not a large amount,ⁱⁱⁱ but enough so that he can use the money both to pay off initial investors and cover ongoing expenses, including a small salary for his work, and he does well on it. He has an account himself – not, however, anything compared with some of the billionaires alive and dead who have participated. His account not only assures his future, but he uses it for demonstration to those considering the project.

And I'd be kidding you if I didn't let you know that I'm also going to get some income from the project. I didn't make anything on the chartering (in all honesty I didn't lose anything either) but I'll soon take Fred's position as manager of the enterprise – its CEO. There will be steady income from that and Fred has assured me that he'll review with me all of the detailed knowledge necessary to run the bank. He's beginning a new project soon in Dubai or Bhutan or some place like that,^iv and he'll have to take a leave of absence from the bank to devote his time to that. The longer the better as far as I'm concerned. The income I'm expecting will allow me to be comfortable, although I must admit that responsibility for so many billions is daunting. He'll certainly have to explain to me the mechanics of deposits, withdrawals, and fund management, but he assures me that it won't be a problem. And I'm a quick learner, if I do say so myself.

I should be able to live a good life. But the real reward will come when I die.

ADDENDUM:  Carl died a few days ago following a heart attack.  Unlike Fred he could not be resuscitated.  He has already removed most of the money from his account, so he must be adapting well to Heaven.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 7” – Back to business.

I        And the money of non-participants similarly would go to heirs and to the government, and would not be available to those who were returned to life in Messianic times.

ii        Obviously I don't know from personal experience, but I'll get the complete facts after I die.

iii      Though it's certainly more than adequate considering the billions that the deceased have withdrawn and that has been transferred to them.

iv       He said he'd send me his address as soon as he was settled.

It's Almost Over

This is part four of a five-part account.  For the full reading please wait until July 13th.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

He had never clarified “OWWW” and I had no idea what it was. So I interrupted and asked. This time he heard me.

“It's the 'Other-World Wide Web.' The main use is as part of the program to bring everyone up to speed on the true religion and all the virtuous acts that our residents perform. They can help each other to see the light, though I suspect that I did so without their help when I was in the tunnel. Souls can communicate with each other as well. They can learn from each other, because learning is never finished. And, to a point, they can connect with the WWW, although their address is changed so there is no trail to the OWWW.

And they can't log onto any site that requires money.ⁱ That makes it impossible to get some of the most recent religious insights. Of course they're not short of divine wisdom in Heaven, but for more than a millennium it's been a human prerogative to determine the meaning of the holy works and they only learn of the advances after the various authors die.ⁱⁱ Since their books cost money, no one on the OWWW can get them and they only learn the new ideas after the authors die. And, unfortunately, medical progress on earth is resulting in longer life spans, so we have to wait longer. Since time progresses slowly in comparison to what we experience on earth, it can be a while before the new information reaches Heaven. Not that they have any place to go or that they're likely to run out of time, but they're junkies for that stuff. After all, spiritual knowledge is one of the criteria for status in that venue.”

I still wasn't sure where he was going. Fred had a lot to say and he seemed to be unstoppable. And what he said was a little complicated. But I was beginning to take him seriously. Even if I didn't really understand what he was telling me. Even though my own education was in law and, though I knew some science, my knowledge of it wasn't much beyond that of an intelligent layman, I was most struck by concepts of time – that of “Heaven” and ours here on earth. I still believed that the apparent expansion of time in dreams was the best explanation, but I couldn't rid myself of thoughts of Einstein. Suppose Heaven is in motion, and moving close to the speed of light. Time would certainly slow down in comparison to what we experience. Maybe that's what was happening. Or was I just getting sucked in? And why do I have to use rational concepts to explain anything as mystical as he was relating?

So I just listened.

“And then it all started falling in place.”

Finally Fred was getting to the point.

“'Bernie,' I said, 'I think that working together we can solve some of the problems you've described. As I understand it, Heaven isn't so different from earth. The biggest problem is money. And what makes it a problem is distribution. But it doesn't have to be. As long as your OWWW can communicate with the WWW it's possible that some way can be found to transfer money.ⁱⁱⁱ I could try to convince them to have their money buried with them like the Pharaoh, but that would be up to their heirs, and I suspect it wouldn't happen very often. It's not a feature of modern religions and people are greedy. They'd rather pocket the money than throw it into a hole.' But what I needed personally was some assurance that I hadn't died and I'd get back to the world I knew. I saw a real opportunity, not only to make scientific progress, but money.”

That was the Fred I knew. I also knew that he was very level-headed and I wasn't ready to disregard his views. In fact, I was becoming convinced.

“I explained to him what I was thinking and asked for the assurance. But, of course, he couldn't give it. Life and death were not decisions he made. 'We'll see what happens and work from there.' I have to admit that if I stayed dead it wouldn't have been a calamity. Everyone seemed happy where they were and I was sure I would be, too. The challenge, though, was tempting. It was an entrepreneur's heaven. Here was the chance to link this world with the afterlife and make money doing it. Everything was already in place, all it needed was someone imaginative enough to connect the dots. I can do that, but I'll need your help to make it work.”

Next episode: “It's Over” – No fat lady, but this will bring us up to date.

 

 

 

 

I        Actually, they can't log into most sites other than the religious ones. Certainly not pornography and other social media.

ii       Remember how slowly time passes up there compared to what we experience. A human lifetime would seem endless in their terms.

iii      Fred and Bernie eventually worked out the protocols necessary to do this. Mostly Fred. His education was worth all that his father paid for it.

Still More

This is part three of a five-part account.  For the full reading please wait until July 13th.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“Slow down. You've lost me.”

Besides the underlying doubts, I really didn't understand what he was saying. It was clear that he had a well-formed picture of what he was describing, but it was a little difficult for me to swallow in undigested form.

“Sorry. It's all so vivid for me. Anyway, I was struck by the fact that the Pharaoh had possessions but no one else did. But the reason turned out to be obvious, if not intuitive. He was better prepared. All the things he thought he'd need were buried with him. So he had them. Of course he learned quickly that nothing he had was of any value, but he had all of it. Even the servants that were buried with him were of no use to him. They were now his equals. Everyone was equal wherever it is that we were.”

“Men and women?”

“There were no men. There were no women. There were only souls – souls that were pure, and there was no difference in their nature. And they weren't at all corporeal. There were no bodies. So there were no physical defects. None was young or old.

“The only difference was that some of them had been evil during their lives. But that was a correctable defect.”

He continued.

“Well, it's not completely accurate that they were all equal. There was kind of a hierarchy and it was based on a couple of things. The Pharaoh did have an advantage over many of the others because he had been rich and highly positioned in life. (You don't specifically get recognition for that but it's a better starting point than poverty.) And there was an advantage to having been religiously observant. It doesn't matter what the religion was. The Pharaoh earned credit for his belief, even though it was misplaced. There everyone is brought around to the one true religion. And when they reach that level they seem to be completely happy; completely at peace. That takes longer for some than others – for those who were distant from their heritages – especially atheists – it may take centuries. But eventually they're happy.

“And sooner or later so are the wicked, although it takes a lot more time if you flouted the rules of the society in which you lived – especially if you oppressed others. The basic premise is that those who were evil chose not to fight the unworthy instincts with which we were all born. Their happiness was delayed not because they were evil – we all have that potential – but because they accepted that condition without an adequate fight.”

It made a lot of sense to me. And I certainly wanted to believe it. I'm reasonably well-off, and if not that much of a community leader, at least I'm relatively honest and respectful of all around me. It's reassuring to know that at least there's a possibility that I'll enjoy an afterlife in which I'll be happy. But I didn't know where Fred was leading. All that he had said seemed to be the preamble to something, even though it wasn't clear what the upshot was.

So I pressed him.

“Where is this all leading?”

He went on. I'm not even sure that he heard me. I had the feeling that he was simply continuing his story.

“Later that day – or was it the next day? – ”

This time I didn't bother to make any attempt to bring him back to reality, yet I was impressed, or maybe amused, by the amount that he claimed to have experienced. And he seemed to believe it.

“I spoke to Bernie again. Told him all about my conversation with the Pharaoh. He smiled and told me that Tut was getting there, but he had a long time to go – at least a millennium or two – and that the scenario he related was only part of the story. It's good for now, but sooner or later the Messiah will come. That's no myth. Of course we don't know when that will be. Interestingly, Bernie didn't know, although he didn't seem to lack any other information.

“'Yes. Someday the Messiah will come.' I had always considered that a good thing, but Bernie disabused me of that idea.

“'In many ways it will be a continuation of this life, but there will also be differences.' I asked him to tell me what he meant and he told me that the good life we'd been enjoying would continue in 'Heaven' (that was his word) and all those on then earth would come and join us. But they could bring their money and purchase all the temptations that they'd learned to love during their time on earth. Anything they desired would be available on the OWWW and we'd get an eternal supply for the initial price. Only those already in Heaven would lose out since they'd have no money to spend.

Next episode: “It's Almost Over” – It's almost over.

The Route Of All Evil

                                                                             

Yes, I know. This essay is supposed to be “For Worse Or For Better,” but while I was thinking about taxes it struck me that money should be discussed first. Money is a great concept. Even the stuff earned and used legally. And the original Constitution provides for taxes in order to provide money “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.”ⁱ And to pay debts, etc. you need money. Right?

Well, yes. In concept. But I think we're doing it wrong. According to legend,ⁱⁱ the devil invented paper money. They say that the devil is in the details, and this invention is one that really fouls things up. The old saw, “The road to Hell is the route of all evil”ⁱⁱⁱ certainly proves true here. (And coins are even worse. There's no more likely cause for a torn pocket than jingling change.) However useful money may seem to be, the reality is that we'd be far better off without it. Whatever good intentions may be associated with the love of money,^iv from a practical point of view there are serious problems.

One that's obvious is that everyone wants it. Including bad guys. Without cash, street crime and other robberies would be markedly diminished. Theft of valuables would persist,^v but they're likely to be more identifiable than unmarked bills. And bank robberies would make no sense if there's nothing to take. Money is a stimulus to crime, so let's get rid of it. Keep the little old ladies who walk the streets (and everyone else) safe.

Another problem with money is that illegal funds are easy to hide. Have you ever been asked by some tradesman to pay cash? “I won't have to charge you tax.” And, of course, he won't have to declare the income, nor pay the income tax that will result from reporting that income. That will create two criminals with a single transaction – two traveling along the fabled route of all evil. And it will cut down on government income.

In addition, unreported money can be laundered and transferred to some other storage place. Taking the cash and dealing with it creatively, you can all but make it disappear. All you need is the money and a cooperative bank. Especially if you know how to stay below reporting thresholds. Don't count on the banks, who make a fortune from such transactions, to stop transfers that they know to be shady.

That leaves the rest of us – the honest citizens and taxpayers – in the hole. Our taxes have to be raised because others have found ways not to pay theirs. We even have to pay for the officials who monitor^vi the banks that have been abetting these illegal practices.

It is also costly to pay for the printing of so many varieties of bills. And that's especially the case if all they do is cause mischief. If they're the invention of the devil, we don't need them.

So what's the solution? Eliminate money! Not conceptually but physically. If there were no bills to carry around, many of the problems I've described would be eliminated. The trick is to maintain our economy, the basis for our society, while decreasing society's risks and costs.

Unfortunately the way that this can be accomplished most efficiently is one that will have exponents of privacy and civil liberties, as well as liberals of all stripes (and conspiracy theorists), up in arms. They will be certain that this is only the first step^vii in the establishment of tyrrany and mind control. But in an age when our DNA is on record, along with our fingerprints, IP addresses, Social Security numbers, and so much additional information including our taxes; when Facebook, Twitter, and so many of the other social media, know more about us than we do ourselves; when facial recognition software can identify us and the GPS's in so many of our devices can locate us, no one should have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Big Brother is watching us. Get over it and move on.

The solution, then, is to institute a system of universal debit cards or something analogous. If all transactions, including salaries and sales, are carried out using these cards, and all our funds listed in a single account, the government can determine our income tax without our even having to file any form unless we want to submit information that we think will lower our taxes. And taxes will always be paid directly without risk of late payment and the fees and penalties arising from that.  Additionally, the government may collect the fees for the cards.  It would be quite a money maker and possibly lower our taxes.

Our incomes will go to the account represented and all purchases will be debited from it. We can be given a warning when we approach a preset lower limit of savings – perhaps enough to pay our income taxes.^viii Additionally, the card can serve as a credit/debit card for other purposes and licenses^ix (eg driver's, gun, professional) can be integrated into it, as can a passport.

Of course there will be the concern about stolen cards and their misuse, but they can be countered by the requirement for some biometric input that will prevent their use by someone not registered for the account in question. The loss of a card may be damaging, but so is the loss of a wallet now, and a mechanism of rapid replacement can be implemented using the biometric as an identifier.^x And other uses will certainly be identified.

There will be problems and objections in addition to the loss of privacy. Credit card companies will object to the nationalization of their industry as will tax preparers, but the cost of government will go down, bills will be paid on time, and individuals will be better able to stick within their budgets and save money. And I wouldn't be too worried about the commercial companies that are crying. Private enterprise will find a way to make a profit in the new environment. They always do.

The only ones who may need special treatment are the kids. We'll have to have change and one dollar bills. How else can you get candy?

Next episode: “For Worse Or Better” – We'll try again.

i      Subsequent additions and interpretations allow the government to use tax money for many additional projects including payroll-padding, welfare, aiding their supporters, and the like, but taxes will be discussed at another time.

ii     Faust and elsewhere.

iii    Or something like that.

iv     “When I'm rich I'll help everyone.” And if you believe that ...

v      Of course the market for such goods will be diminished. Someone who wants to keep a stolen item so he can look at it, like an artwork or rare baseball card, will do so. But that works only if he steals it for himself. If someone else does so and he wants to buy it, he'll have more difficulty.

vi     Or are paid off by them.

vii    It's hardly the first step. People have been gathering data on you for years. Collectors include the government, pollsters, everyone with a URL requiring you to sign in, and probably your neighbor who has videotaping capability on his “smart” phone (in fact his phone is probably smarter than he is), and all the snoopy people in your life.

viii   Including state and local taxes.

ix     No, not artistic or poetic.

x      Such biometric identifiers could also be used for ATMs, but the system would eliminate the need for them altogether.

Paying The Bills

                                                                                

Percentage of United States budget for Health Care:ⁱ

Other health care costs:

Total cost of your health care:

I'm not a sophisticated economist. No. Change that. I'm not an economist. But my mind wandered a little this morning and I started wondering about health care costs. The presidential election's over now, and with it the rhetoric that usually clouds such issues with the complicated overlays of emotion and politics that make any real understanding difficult at best.

So I have the luxury of considering [selected] numbers without having to factor in such distractions [from the numbers] as guilt, responsibility, and the purpose of society. It's even easier since I've decided not to look up the numbers right now. I'll do that presently – after I've given some thought to the nature of the problem. Only then, when we both have a little more information, can we try to quantify it. I may be surprised and find out that no problem exists, but in the meantime I can give some thought to the way we manage money in our current society.

So let me get to some basic considerations, and they're really considerations of human nature. Because I spent most of my life in medicine (no, not taking, it but working as a physician) I'm focusing on health care. I noticed early on – in fact I noticed as a college student before I became a doctor – that there was a paradox in the cost of scientific glassware. It was both unconscionably expensive, and it was free. It was “free” because someone else was paying for it – usually the government or a granting foundation – but the price was inordinately high because the vendors knew that the people ordering it weren't paying for it themselves. And very often they didn't even need it. I also learned that there was a basic rule that you always spend all of the money given you, or you may get less the following year.

That's the way money management works. An individual may be very careful with his own budget, but will freely disburse what he doesn't see as his own. And he'll spare no effort to increase his intake – as income for himself or as money he can give away or spend on others. There's always an organization or some sucker with deep pockets who can be convinced to pick up the slack.

But that philosophy is one that involves not only people: governmentsⁱⁱ have little hesitation about spending our money on programs that sound good, and we don't care – especially since we don't recognize that in the end we'll wind up paying the tab. More likely our grandchildren or their grandchildren will wind up with the bill. We're paying for the generosity of those who preceded us. We're paying for their guilt and magnanimity, and our descendants will pay for ours. Actually we're only making the interest payments, but sooner or later our creditors will demand that we – really it will be those who follow us – start paying off the principle. That principle is the National Debt, which now amounts to … (I'll look that up later, too). We keep kicking the can down the road, but sooner or later someone will get it and have to open it – and it's a real can of worms. Greece knows that.

The needy, however, are everywhere, not just in our country. And they suffer not only from poverty but from disease and oppression.ⁱⁱⁱ The basic idea, and it is a beautiful one, is that we are all responsible for each other. In the Western tradition, the Bible tells us to help the poor, the widow, and the orphan. “Love thy neighbor.” And I have no doubt that there are similar injunctions in all other cultures. But religious teachings often place limits on the amount that one can give away, and realpolitik governs the extent of involvement we're permitted in the affairs of other countries. We're not always wise to try to care for all of humanity, nor are we always free to do so. We know about the tribulations of those around the world, but we can't afford to deal with all of them. And, many believe, it's not our place to do so.

That, however, is neither here nor there. At least it's not the subject of today's discourse. More to the point is our consideration of the cost of caring for the health of our own citizens. That used to be a family obligation but not any longer. Now it is a duty that has devolved onto society in general, even if we may disagree on what standards we should use to judge it^iv and those who receive it, we all pay for it.^{v vi} We consider it self-evident that those who can better afford it than we should pay more to support the kind of care that all our citizens deserve.^vii

Oh. I finally got around to checking. Health care makes up about 23% of the national budget. Apart what you pay for your own care, $230 of every $1,000 you pay in income taxes goes in that basket.^viii As well as 23% of what you pay in a variety of other taxes you pay – like tariffs for imported items – and the costs incorporated into the prices of whatever you buy. The latter reflect producer's and manufacturer's costs that are simply passed on to the consumer. Congratulations. The bottom line is that you're probably paying not only for your own medical costs but for those of others as well. I trust you feel magnanimous.

By the way, our National debt now is over $16 and a quarter trillion and rising rapidly with each new program. But who cares? There isn't any real problem (for me). It's only money, and soon enough it will be someone else's burden.

Next episode: “Growing Down” – It's a tall order.

i      By the way, the use of health care costs is only an example The same issues and calculations can be considered for all parts of our budget. I won't look up any numbers for you though.

ii     Or, more accurately, our elected representatives who are looking for votes in the next election.

iii    Sickness doesn't stop at the water's edge. Nor does guilt.

iv    We wish to raise our standards, but as more and more individuals become eligible for subsidized care, as payments for that care diminish, as medicine becomes more assembly-line, standards are more likely to diminish.

v      That includes Christian Scientists and others who may oppose the programs in general or some who oppose particular parts for religious reasons (like those who consider abortion to be murder). The First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom does not extend to health care.

vi      The reimbursement for some services can be lowered artificially, but that doesn't actually change the costs of performing or providing those services. If it leads to a lowering of salaries it will drive the best practitioners into other fields, diminishing both the number of providers and their quality. It may be necessary to enlarge the bureaucracy to supervise these services even if that will raise costs. The more people involved in regulating and minimizing the costs, the higher they'll be. But it will provide jobs.

vii    “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” It was good enough for Robin Hood and it's good enough for us (even if it's not clear who decides on ability and needs). The redistribution of resources makes a lot of sense in a society that prizes equality. Those who view Marx's words ("Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!") as a call for socialism are simply mean-spirited. And those who fear that this kind of redistribution will lessen the initiative of the capable are fear-mongers. We'll all work hard and work long hours to support those who don't.

As for those who contend that actions of this sort are contrary to the ideas of the Founders, they should be aware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are outdated, and we now have the Supreme Court to make the laws.

viii   As you must certainly realize that is the amount expended by the government only. It covers Medicare and costs that cannot be paid by the poor and the disabled. It does not cover your costs to private insurers (I pay for long-term insurance to protect my children), deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses for medications and the like.