bank secrets

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't pay directly for the roads that the food travelled to get to me.

But I don't have to pay for them in taxes, either. Many roads were, historically, built by private organizations for profit. With modern technology, it would be possible to charge users by the ton-mile and the only impact would be in a monthly statement. However, either way, the transportation cost, etc., would be part of the grocer's expenses (albeit, indirect).

I don't pay directly for the oversight of the factories that (usually) ensures that the products that I purchase are safe for human consumption. Nor do I pay directly for the truth in advertising oversight that keeps the labels honest.

I wouldn't buy an appliance without the UL tag, though I suspect I could. I think that they do a much better job of it than the governmental agencies that are forever recalling contaminated food and lead containing products. Some degree of governmental <strike>interference</strike> control is necessary to keep everyone honest, but I tremble at the thought of letting the government do it all. Besides, this is again part of the grocer's expenses.

I subsidized the gasoline costs of the farmer and I also subsidized the property taxes on the land it was grown on.

And that is a damned shame. The need for farm subsidies is far passed (if it indeed ever existed). That it ever accomplished much more than the dumping of excess milk and the spoilage of excess grain is something I've never had demonstrated.

Then again, I might be mistaken. If you intend 'subsidized' to mean 'pay for', then it is just another of the grocer's costs.

But I still pay the grocer directly for the food. I do look at it from the standpoint that quite a lot of my subsidies are, indeed, 'coming right back at me'. My money was not wasted. I got to avoid both sickness and additional costs in my grocery bill.

OK, I'm sorta lost. There are costs involved in generating the food that comes to market. Some of those costs come from the private sector (seed, fertilizer, gasoline, the farmer's living expenses, etc.). Some of them come from the government (inspection requirements, regulations as to wholesomeness, etc.). And some can come from either (transportation, the actual inspection, etc.).

In any case, these costs are the same whether I pay for the food directly or if the government pays for it for me using my taxes. My point was that if groceries were socialized, there would be additional costs, even in a perfectly efficient government. There would, at the very least, be additional people involved and their time would have to be compensated. But, their involvement does not contribute to the quality of the food, to the quantity, or to its availability in any positive way. The very best case scenario is that all they do is add a useless expense. One need only to look at the situation in the Soviet Block countries prior to the '90s to see what the real scenario is. The worse case scenario is what dark sf is made of.

I just have to jump in now and again to debunk that Yankee knee-jerk 'socialism is state ownership and always a Bad Thing™' reaction. ;)

I'm not convinced that "'socialism is . . . always a Bad Thing™" is that far off the mark. It definitely needs to be a last resort remedy, applied as lightly as possible. As to it being state ownership, that is a difficult concept. If I own a widget, but the state puts a limit on how I can use it, when I can sell it, to whom, and for how much, do *I* really own it? So, that grocer may own his store, own the products, but at what point of state regulation does that 'ownership' become meaningless?

Please do continue the regular rant about the lack of efficiency in government spending.

Your wish . . . B)

As if anyone could stop my ranting :lol:

--Pete