Back

Ok, so I've resolved to keep this thing updated. I have free time now, having graduated, so I can do that. I'll start by posting a little parable I wrote.

Lots of injokes in here. Names have not been changed because nobody is innocent.

Say we all live in a village called PVCCopolis. There are 100 people living in this village.
Say we each have $100, exactly the same amount of money. Say that we could buy generators-- one generator provides enough electricity for one person and costs $90, because you have to construct an electrical line to your house and set it all up and buy the generator and fuel and whatnot. We each only have $10 left. Let's assume that a generator is an indispensable utility, so everyone wants one-- and in any case, everyone has to pay, because anyone can get benefit from the generator by running a line to their house.

Now say we could buy a big generator for $8000 that provides enough electricity for everyone. This cost would cover the generator, fuel, hooking up everyone's house etc.
The liberal solution is to tax everyone for $80 and buy the big one, giving everyone electricity and $20 left each.
The conservative solution is to let the market figure it out. Now, in this village, naturally the market would decide to buy the big generator, netting the same result.

Now imagine PVCCopolis has lots of different kinds of people. There's the town doctor, Shogs, whose medical practice and musical career have made him wealthy. There's Prince Ali, the son of the king, who lives in luxury from his inheritance. On the other end of the scale there's Georgeson who is poor and stupid and spends his welfare checks on Old Crow. Say Shogs and Ali have $200 and Georgeson only has $40. In all other respects the situation is the same as before.

Why don't we buy the big generator? Well, no one person can afford it. Furthermore, Georgeson can't afford to pay the $80 required. He can only pay $40. "But wait!" cry Shogs and Prince Ali. "Why should we have to pay the full $80 when Georgeson is only paying $40? Also, will we have to pay more to make up the shortfall? Screw that, we're buying our own generators!"

As a result, some people go without electricity and some people buy more expensive, less efficient generators.

The liberal solution is progressive taxation. Sygerrik, the town's long-suffering accountant, puts it this way: "Well, Prince Ali, you use a lot more electricity than Georgeson. He just runs his lights and electric stove and maybe a TV. You have all that plus your blender, your stereo, and the electric nipple clamps for your erotic homosex torture dungeon. Maybe you should pay more since you get more benefit out of it." Some people are so poor that they just get given electricity for free, so nobody has to freeze or starve. We get a big, efficient generator.

The conservative solution is "let the poor die in the streets if they can't afford to live." Or alternatively, Georgeson spends $40 on a terrible generator that shorts out constantly and he's still cold and hungry, and now too poor to afford enough alcohol to let him forget that.

We could expand this parable further-- discussing what happens when we can prevent poor people from using the generator if they haven't paid in-- but that involves making the situation much more complex and adding in variables like Prince Ali's Egg Farm, which employs Georgeson (he is a trustworthy worker, since he won't eat any eggs), and thus how Prince Ali and society as a whole are negatively impacted by inefficiencies such as expensive, crappy generators.