Dave Smith > wrote in
:

>> I don't think that deep down she spent all that just to look cool,
>> but you're entitled to trivialize the issue any way you want. Just
>> make sure you clarify that you're trivializing it so we know you're
>> failing to address the fundamental point.
>
> I missed the fundamental point? You were the one who jumped to the
> conclusion that she blew it on drugs. The fundamental point was about
> lifting people out of poverty. She was lifted out of poverty.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but, for one thing, you cannot lift
anyone out of poverty. This is where well-intentioned (or even some ill-
intentioned) programs assume they have power over others. Unfortunately,
it happens that in a society such as ours, people will rarely do anything
such as change radically if they cannot realize it is in their self-
interest, not the interests of the government or the public purse. I
other words, you can't shame people into changing.

This applies to people "being lifted out of poverty" (tm applied for) as
well as any other addictive behaviour pattern, for example smoking or
gambling or voting conservative.

Self-interest however requires some education before engaging in whatever
activity is involved. Too often those left with such massive decisions
have not got the means to assess the situationj and make rational
decisions. Too often people are given as choice but not told what the
implications are because the person explaining it has no idea. You can't
blame them for not knowing.

Just as we require drivers to educate themselves in the proper
manipulation of a large object which will hurtle at great speed, in order
to avoid causing unnecessary injury (and by the way, that's another thing
your taxes pay for and you can thank the gods for that), or crane
operators so they learn not to drop things on top of us (you see where
I'm going here?), there are massive changes which should be accompanied
by a training seminar. But I don't think it's going to happen any time
soon and governments of the dexter variety tend to leave matters like
that to the appropriately named Invisible Hand.

Steiglitz argues that the invisible hand often seems invisible because it
in fact is not there. In other words, there are things we can't leave to
random chance. How much we can't leave to random chance depends on what
you think is important. Personally, I think social well-being should
trump economic well-being so you can tell what I think of the current
gummint ;-)

Ok, I have a camembert which has reached room temp and I'm going to go
eat some.