Departing Basseterre, St. Kitts

Kathy has a very good sense of how to get night shots that bring out an artistic reaction. These two photos were taken as we awaited departure from St. Kitts. We were unexpectedly delayed by three hours as we took on fuel from a barge. This gave us time for astrophotography (didn't turn out too well) and these two samples.

English Harbor, Antigua

This is a view of English Harbor and Falmouth Harbor (beyond the causeway) in Antigua. This photo is taken from one of the three outposts on Shirley's Heights.

In English Harbor proper is Nelson's Dockyard, so named because Admiral Nelson was commander here for some time. The dockyard is a well-preserved historical site that offers insight into the workings of a Caribbean British naval base in the Age of Sail. It is best to first go to Shirley's Heights to watch the worthwhile presentation prepared by the Antiguans.

Whether with a tour group or going independently with a taxi driver, ask lots of questions on the way to this side of the island. It takes about half an hour to get here from St. Johns (the capitol), and cuts through the heart of the island.

A view of Signal Hill on Pigeon Island, St. Lucia

This photo was taken from just below Fort Rodney, on the lower of the two peaks on the island. The resort on the causeway to the island is a Sandals resort.

Part of what is interesting about this picture is the difference in vegetation on the saddle point between the two peaks. On the ocean side (left in photo), the vegetation is rough and scraggly. On the harbor side (right in photo), it is composed of more grasses and trees. I wonder if this is a salt spray effect?

High Dynamic Range Photography: Inside the Cathedral in Old San Juan

This picture was taken inside the cathedral in Old San Juan. This is my first attempt at creating a high(er) dynamic range picture. This is a combination of three photos using "exposure blending." I shot three images, bracketed by 2EV each. In a normal exposure, the madonna in the alcove is washed out. Using this method, as semi-automated by a GIMP script, it was possible to have the full range of detail.

One lesson I learned from several attempts is to use a tripod. In many cases, I shifted or rotated the camera slightly, resulting in an imperfect alignment that is difficult to correct. I gave up on several of my hoped for HDR photos, but I will do better in the future!

A view of the harbor in San Juan, Puerto Rico as it leads past Old San Juan to the sea. This is part of the walking tour of Old San Juan. We are standing right next to the Governor's Mansion (not pictured), one of the oldest dwellings in the New World.

We found that we could drop our luggage at a restaurant named Barrachina, home of the first Pina Colada, located just two blocks from where this picture was taken. Not only are they very nice to hold our luggage (for a nominal "tip", payable in advance), but the food is authentic and excellent. It was a nice way to end our cruise last month, as we waited to depart by plane later in the afternoon.

The View from Signal Hill, Pigeon Island, Saint Lucia

This image is a panoramic that I put together using Panorama Factory and shots from the top of Signal Hill on Pigeon Island in Saint Lucia. It's quite a hike to get to the top of this hill, but the view is spectacular.

Many years ago, when the Rodney Bay marina was constructed, they removed the sand and used it to build a causeway linking the island to the mainland. Since then, Sandals resorts has built a lovely hotel on the causeway, which some of the locals resent encroaching on this even lovelier historic national park.

This island has a lot of history. It was fortified by the British as a defense (and implied threat) against the French on the nearby island of Martinique. Fort Rodney, on the lower peak of the island, was the primary walled defense, supported by gun emplacements in the saddle between the two peaks. Signal Hill was used to display large signal flags on a tall flagpole so that distant friendly ships could receive messages. Near the present causeway are the ruins of the extensive headquarters and support buildings built to support the island as a major naval base.

Regrettably, Saint Lucia is undergoing an extreme drought, so all the foliage and underbrush is dry and brown. This is most unusual for this island, which normally boasts extensive rainfall and lush vegetation. The situation is so dire that the government is rationing water, cutting off service to various areas for several days at a time, unannounced and for uncertain duration each time. The locals still use water barrels, and so are generally able to coast through each rationing period. Nevertheless, it puts an incredible strain on their ability to host tourists, which is by far their greatest export.

Kathy and I hope to return to Saint Lucia a third time, when there is more rain and more green. Until then, we pray for them to receive good rains.

Quote of the Day: The Slaughter Rule

"Why not just get rid of the Constitution altogether, adopt the sham legislative procedures of a banana republic, and drop the pretense that we are a nation governed by the rule of law and certain specifically prescribed political procedures? That would be preferable to enduring this current charade and insult to the electorate being undertaken by the Democrats." --Guy Jones, commenting on the article referenced below.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Quote of the Day

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with most unnecessary attention but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Volume 1

Justin Wehr asks philosophical questions

Wehr in the World is asking questions about wisdom.

Here are the questions and the answers that I submitted:

Question 1: What is a good parent?
A good parent realizes that their life was fundamentally altered when their child was conceived. They re-prioritize their life to make the education (in knowledge and wisdom) of their child(ren) their most valuable long-term goal. They are, in fact, influencing the life of their child(ren), their own life (in the event of age or disability), the lives of everyone their child(ren) will come into profound contact with, and very probably a line of succeeding generations. A good parent balances the individual needs of the child(ren) with familial and societal needs, which vary by person, family, and culture. This involves constant discipline and action. In the end, a good parent teaches their child(ren) to be independent thinkers and doers, capable of achievment.

Question 2: How can one tell if one is in love or infatuated?
Infatuation is a gut reaction of desire; not wrong or right, it just is. Love is something altogether more difficult to comprehend. There are many types of love--for self, for parents and siblings, for spouse, for children, for friends, for ideas, for country, etc. The distinguishing characteristic about love is the presence of the spirit of "giving" in addition to "desire."

Question 3: How much love should one have for oneself?
Enough to appreciate one's qualities, but not so much that one becomes prideful. Enough to accept one's faults, but not so much that one never strives to improve.

Question 4: Should one worry what other people think?
Worry? No. Be concerned? Maybe. Any action one takes that affects the well-being of others should involve concern. Otherwise, it is probably not any of their business, and concern on their behalf is a waste of effort.

Question 5: What should one do when anxious?
Pray. Seek counsel from references, either books or people, from memory or otherwise. These things and people are called "references" for a reason, as they provide a reference point for our own feelings, knowledge and experience. Anxiety is tied to impending uncertainty or unpleasantness, neither of which one wants to experience. Mastering the anxiety is the key to continuing on. Mitigating the causes of the anxiety and their effects provides action, which is soothing in and of itself. Just don't give up.

Question 6: How should one deal with death?
Above all, with honesty. If another has died, one must accept what has occurred, regardless of why. One must move on with life or else follow the deceased. If one's own death is pending, one must accept what will occur, regardless of why. One must complete preparations for death if possible, but once that is concluded (or while it is in others' hands), one should embrace the life that remains.

Question 7: What should one do if one is shy?
Find and hold fast a small group of close friends and family. There is no need to be outgoing with everyone, so long as one has at least one other person in life as a good and true friend. Do what must be done in public life, be polite with all, but be not ashamed for being shy.

Question 8: How should one end a relationship?
I have never done this properly, and consider myself unwise in this respect.

Question 9: How can one live happily with other people?
I am still learning how to do this, and consider myself unwise in this respect.

Roger Ebert

This wonderful look at the life of Roger Ebert caught my attention. What I find most amazing is that a man who has endured so much pain can still find so much joy in life.

Because he can no longer speak, he writes notes on scraps of paper or has his computer speak his words. What is interesting is the effect on his anger. He will still become angry, but the moment passes him more quickly because of the effort required to communicate it. Perhaps there is wisdom in counting to ten before releasing our anger, as it may really evaporate more often than not.

Also quite moving is the story of his relationship with Gene Siskel, his first television partner. He has spent considerable time in his online journal remembering Gene. They were opposites in many ways, argued much, but were connected somehow by a shared destiny. They were the best of friends until the day Gene Siskel died. While showing to an interviewer the journal entry containing a video of his first show after Gene's death, the video was unexpectedly reported deleted. This sent Ebert into a towering rage, typing on his computer the equivalent of "standing on the street corner ... arching his back and ... shouting at the top of his lungs." I have no doubt that whoever deleted the content received hell for it soon after.

Roger Ebert does not believe in any afterlife. He knows that he is "dying in increments." But he goes on living and working and enjoying what is left of his life.

I do believe in the afterlife. This will not stop me from drawing a lesson from Roger Ebert's life:

My belief in a paradise after death should not stop me from "sucking the marrow" from the life I have on earth, no matter how good or bad my life becomes. This does not mean, "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die." Rather, I should treat life as a precious gift and not let a moment go to waste in despair and despondency. "To despair is to turn one's back on God." It also wastes the gift of life.

Bonus: Here is a review of the Esquire article linked above. It records some of Ebert's reaction to the article. It seems to have been cathartic.

The Law and the Profits: Part 4

Finishing up Chapter 1. This is such a rich chapter that I don't mind having spent four posts getting through it and the preface.

To summarize all that went before, "the public revenue is regarded as limitless[,] and expenditure rises eternally to meet it, and the various devices which are supposed to check expenditure fail to do so, being wrongly conceived and imperfectly motivated."

What to do? "[R]e-motivate the people actually concerned, penalizing the extravagance we now reward and rewarding the economy we now penalize."

The crux of it is this: "Ministers should not begin by ascertaining what the departments need. They should begin by asking what the country can afford to spend." Much like household budgeting.

Without specifying a value for the ideal tax revenue to GDP ratio (more in chapter 6), he identifies this as a critical metric. "What proportion of the national income should the government demand? What proportion of the individual's income can the government safely take? And what happens when that proportion is exceeded?" He asserts that economists have been actively shying away from this problem, which has the unfortunate side effect of letting government believe that "where government expenditure is concerned, the sky is the limit." I have read many news articles recently where the ratio problem is accepted as true and bearing real adverse consequences. Perhaps this is a sign that economists are not shy about this problem any longer.

The natural advantage of this method of tax revenue budgeting is that it necessarily limits expenditure. This makes it easier for the legislature to allocate funds, under ideal circumstances. This is a consistent grain of salt that must be applied while reading this book: Prof. Parkinson sounds a lot like an idealist, and may very well have been. This can undermine his suggestions on grounds of impracticality, although he often anticipates this response (especially from the civil service) and offers advice on how to get round the opposition.

The second advantage is that expenditure can (should?) become flexible within each department and sub-unit. The reason for this is as follows: Ministers are responsible for achieving goals; more goals can be accomplished on a fixed budget if ministers economize; if promotions are based jointly on economy and goal achievement, then ministers (and subordinates) are competitively prodded in the direction of less inefficiency and waste.

To oversee the ministers, the Treasury department, instead of "divided control", can employ the "strong leash of account and audit." (This creates an efficiency in and of itself by eliminating a lot of overhead.) The minister is then "compelled to accept responsibility, free to display initiative[,] and forced to recognize that cost and value are but two aspects of the same idea."

As mentioned in an earlier post, enlisting the public (as the ultimate overseer of government) is vital in the prevention of waste. He suggests an official tribunal, composed of private citizens and at least one government representative, to receive all proposals for saving money. Upon detailed review of each proposal, including hearings with the public and with the affected departments, they can conclude the feasibility. Each favorable decision would lead to a "ministerial order to the department concerned to reduce its future allocation by the amount to be saved." The tribunal would also reward each successful applicant, such as through tax credits proportionally related to the amount of the saving. He also suggests that all savings be used to repay the national debt. It seems clear that the savings that would go through the tribunal are sizeable compared to the savings that each minister might find within their own department as part of the goal achievement competition.

To combat the "formidable opposition"-- "a closed phalanx of civil servants representing one of the strongest vested interests in the world"--there is not yet in the book a suggestion for victory. There is a history of rebuffed reform attempts from 1570 onward, a brief chronicle of the rise of "esoterrorism" (a blend of "esoterics" and "terrorism"). "Let no one imagine that this citadel will yield to the first assault. Let no one doubt, however, that it will yield to the last."

Next time, the types of taxes through history.

"Why are liberals so condescending?"

I was startled to come across this article in the Washington Post asking the question, "Why are liberals so condescending?" Within, Gerard Alexander examines statements from the 1950's forward that cast conservatism as "more of a psychiatric disorder than a rival."

Comments were closed, so it is difficult to know how other readers are responding to the article. I don't believe that every liberal is condescending, just as I believe that not every conservative is without guilt in destroying civility in public discourse. It is definitely a problem, however, when liberals appear to be running two out of three branches of the federal government.

I may not be the most intellectual conservative-libertarian, but I do not need liberal pity and condescension for my beliefs. I'd like to see leading liberals (and conservatives and libertarians) roll up their sleeves and talk about more facts and fewer opinions.

Here is a response article from Dan Kennedy in the U.K.

The State of the Union: Campaign Finance

Last night, the President stated:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.

He received much applause from the floor, but earned a quiet "Not true" from Justice Alito.

Laying aside the issue of trying to intimidate the Justices and whether corporations are politically "people", there is a simple flaw in the President's argument. He fails to acknowledge the behavior of national and state parties and associations in crossing state and district lines respectively to imbalance elections. Imagine a scenario where House candidates only receive funds and volunteer assistance from within their district, and where Senate candidates only receive funds and volunteer assistance from within their state. This is a fantasy, far removed from the truth of how campaigns are financed.

Let's face facts. The national parties are special interests in local and state races. Out-of-state corporations and associations are "foreign entities" under state laws. We have the fundamental rights to associate and to petition our government for redress of grievances. (Together, these rights allow us to try to get our candidates elected--the ultimate opportunity for redress of grievances.)

It is hypocrisy to point out the mote in someone else's eye and ignore the log in your own. If you want to clean up campaign finance, examine out-of-state and out-of-district contributions. By definition, that means that you are examining foreign contributions.

Tax Time Stinks

Forget the winter blues. I've got the taxation blues.

I'm busy closing my year-end accounts for tax filings for my businesses. Every January (and at the beginning of each quarter--January is just the worst) I really hate having to be Uncle Sam's and the Commonwealth of Virginia's uncompensated tax collector. Last year I got smart and paid my accountant to do the annual payroll tax filings (W-2's, 1099's, etc.).

Has anyone ever sent government an invoice for tax collection services rendered? Had it paid? Does this make me a slave to my government?

And it will only get worse for me if Congress passes the health insurance reform bill. I hope that Brown wins in Massachusetts, and that the Democrats don't use reconciliation to pass the bill without cloture.

Please, God. Put an end to it! I don't want to suffer more!

The Tolkien Professor

A friend of mine sent me this wonderful site containing an ongoing series of podcasts about J.R.R. Tolkien and his writings. The author writes concerning himself and the site:

My name is Corey Olsen. I am a professor of medieval literature and an English PhD, and I have been a student of Tolkien’s works for as long as I can remember. On this website, I am posting a series of FREE audio lectures on Tolkien’s major works for you to download and listen to on your computer, your iPod, or wherever. I hope you have as much fun listening to my lectures as I have making them!

He is not too far along, so it won't take long for you to catch up.

Quote of the Day

"Apathy and inertia are the handmaidens of indifference."

--Over the Hedge comic strip, 9 January 2010

The Law and the Profits, Part 3

Still in chapter 1.

Professor Parkinson relates the general process of government budgeting: The civil servants create the budgets in such a way that the previous year's dollars are adjusted for inflation, and then a percentage is added for good measure. These values trickle up to the Treasury, at which point revenues are allocated to meet budgetary demand. The legislature plays a role in the authorization and allocation, but if the system of accounts is not robust (as it was in Britain despite major reform efforts in 1666, 1689, 1826-29, and 1904), then the legislatures role is practically limited.

The United States federal government has spent many years attempting to improve its system of accounts, yet after so long still regularly fails to modernize and make reliable the financial systems at key departments. (See the Financial Report of the United States, past and current, specifically the auditor's reports.) Having read the U.S. financial reports for nearly a decade, it is clear that progress is being made. Nevertheless, politics interferes with budgeting reform. A fascinating paper by Theresa Kohler of Virginia Tech examines some of the major problems of legislative involvement in budgeting, and reviews some concepts for improvement. A list of recommendations from the Heritage Foundation identifies seven steps for current budget reform. Parkinson has his own suggestion for reform, which is stated simply: "Ministers should not begin by ascertaining what the departments need. They should begin by asking what the country can afford to spend." This is after all the basis for household and business budgeting; why not the government as well? More in part 4.

The U.S. is a long way from the Britain of Parkinson's time (1957), and yet we are still very close in many ways. He states, "The accepted principle is that new expenditure is watched by the Treasury, old expenditure by the departments themselves." In the U.S., most budgeting is done by incremental changes to the baseline, which is determined by the departments. New allocations are an amalgam of legislative and departmental desire. There is so much happening in the federal budget that the 535 people who are our representatives cannot know what is going on in any significant detail. Therefore, they must deal in "deltas" from baseline, allowing what presently is spent to continue to be spent. This is the reason that few government programs are ever ended despite the clear end (successful or not) of their mission. It is simply too difficult to identify these living-dead programs and to end them. Now, in modern times, using the internet as a tool, some efforts to bring transparency to the federal budget are having the effect of allowing more citizens to review the budget and to make their voices heard concerning the waste. What remains to be seen is whether politicians will have the political fortitude to end the waste.

Parkinson writes concerning the watchdog,

"The ordinary taxpayer is often in a better position to know about waste in administration than either the politician or the journalist. For one thing, he may himself be employed in the [government program]. It is theoretically in his interest as well as his duty to come forward and denounce extravagance when he sees it. He does nothing of the kind, and that for two distinct reasons. In the first place, he stands to gain nothing but unpopularity and abuse, being likely to be regarded as at best a crank, at worst a spy. In the second place, he knows perfectly well that the money saved in one direction will certainly be wasted in another. Nothing he can do will reduce the tax he has to pay. So he wisely decides to say nothing and keep the good opinion of his neighbors. In matters of public expenditure no help is to be expected from the public at large unless the informant is personally rewarded and at the same time assured that all savings will go to the reduction of the taxes to which he is subject."

He did not foresee the internet, nor the rise of watchdog groups. He saw the heroic individual standing up for what is right in the face of "unpopularity and abuse." The watchdog groups still receive "unpopularity and abuse," but the effect is diluted and easier to individually bear. There is strength in numbers, and I must caution that not all interest groups are evil or self-interested.

Next time, how much taxation can a country afford, and what types of taxation are appropriate?

The Snow Cometh; the Snow Goeth

2009 Christmas Blizzard

The Law and the Profits: Part 2

The Law and the Profits, by C. Northcote Parkinson (of Parkinson's Law fame). Chapter 1, continued.

Chapter 1 delves into the reasons for increasing taxation before attempting to persuade concerning the evils of excessive taxation. In short, he attributes the trend increase to "temporary" wartime increases that are never fully decreased once the war is over. This long paragraph, excerpted from the beginning of Chapter 1 is too well-written to attempt a paraphrase:

Governmental as opposed to individual income is historically linked with the incidence of war. In all systems of revenue there has always been the provision for the temporary expenses of conflict. During a time of emergency, with our interests, our beliefs, our pride, or even our existence at stake, we agree to pay almost anything as the price of victory. In theory the revenue should fall to something like its previous level. In practice it seldom does. While the governmental income remains almost at its wartime level, peacetime expenditure rises to meet it. In times past the action of this law was slightly restrained, to be sure, by two considerations which no longer apply. In the first place, it was usually felt that taxes had to be reduced somewhat in time of peace in order to allow for their being raised again in time of war. During a century, however, when each successive war is judged to be the last, this theory finds no further support. In the second place, there are types of extravagance which yield only a diminishing return. To the provision of banquets and the enjoyment of dancing girls there is (eventually) a physical limit. The same is not true, unfortunately, of departmental and technical luxuriance. Economic and cultural advisers can multiply beyond the point at which concubines might be thought a bore; beyond the point even at which they might be thought unbearable. Financially, as well as aesthetically, the situation has become infinitely worse.

One can look into the history of the United States to understand when taxation has been introduced. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides for "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," of which primarily duties, imposts and excises were chiefly in force in the colonial period. The first instance of the income tax is in 1861 during the Civil War (at a mere 3% single top rate). Though struck down as unconstitutional, it was introduced again in 1894 during peacetime (at a mere 2% single top rate), but was struck down again as unconstitutional. It was revived permanently (thus far) in 1913 following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. The highest rates were increased from 7% to 77% between 1916 and 1918 during World War 1. Following the war, the rates were reduced (generously, we might think) to (only) 24%, though it took until 1929 to reach this nadir. Rates went up again (to 81% by 1941) to combat the Great Depression, increased further to 94% (by 1942) during World War 2. Rates came down (only) to 82% (by 1949), then increased again to 92% in 1952-1953 (the onset of stalemate in the Korean War). Since then, rates have trended downward to the present highest rate of 35%. (See this Wikipedia article for the details.)

Payroll taxes were introduced to combat the Great Depression (Social Security) and the War on Poverty (Medicare), and have been expanded several times over several decades to increase revenue and expand public services.

It is clear simply from U.S. history that Parkinson observed correctly. Taxation does not seem to return to pre-war levels, giving rise to the statement of the second law, that expenditure must inevitably rise to meet the increased level of taxation.

In the next article, we shall take up the details of taxation somewhat from the civil service and political viewpoint.

The Law and the Profits (Part 1)

Earlier this year, I read The Law and the Profits, by C. Northcote Parkinson (of Parkinson's Law fame). This book was first published in 1960, and though the subject of the analysis is Great Britain and the supporting figures are many decades old, the theme is still true and relevant today in the United States.

(My 1960 first edition American printing was recently shredded and eaten by my two dogs, so I have since acquired--for around fifteen dollars--a replacement 1960 first edition London printing from Alibris. The drawings within are different, but the text appears to be the same. This survey of the book is based on the first edition.)

I have not found (by Google search) any material about this book, save a brief mention in this Wikipedia article concerning Parkinson's Law, and then only to call it a corollary to the first law. It is in fact Parkinson's Second Law--claimed so by the author himself in Chapter 1.

Chapter 1 is titled "Parkinson's Second Law" and opens thus:

Expenditure rises to meet income. Parkinson's Second Law, like the first, is a matter of everyday experience, manifest as soon as it is stated, as obvious as it is simple.

The first example is of a family implicitly obeying this law. However, the subject of the book is government, and to that he moves in the second paragraph and rarely leaves this subject again for the remainder of the book.

It is less widely recognized that what is true of individuals is also true of governments. Whatever the revenue may be, there will always be the pressing need to spend it. But between governments and individuals there is this vital difference, that the government rarely pauses even to consider what its income is.

("What its income is" does not refer merely to accounting, although the early 20th-century British government appears to have had a problem even with this. Rather, this phrase, as we will see in later installments, refers particularly to the nature of the income and not merely its quantity.)

It is arguable that governments that annually rely on deficit spending are described perfectly by this statement. I will need to return to this topic later.

With this simple understanding of Parkinson's Second Law, let me quote now from the "Preface:"

The first purpose of this book is to show that there are limits to the collection of revenue and that evils multiply when these limits are ignored. However, the tendency to cross these limits appears to be universal, eternal and all but irresistable: the growth of taxation is clearly subject to a law.

The second purpose of this book is to show that a greatly reduced revenue would bring about an improvement, not decline, in the public services. It is the paradox of administration that fewer people have less to do and more time, therefore, in which to think about what they are doing. When funds are limitless, the only economy made is in thinking. The worst inefficiencies do not stem from a lack of funds, but from an initial failure to decide exactly what the object is. It is this muddled thinking that leads to waste, and often to waste on a colossal scale. Towards eliminating public waste an essential step is to reduce the total revenue. Officials are less inclined to squander what is not there. A knowledge of the law which governs expenditure should ensure that the profits from taxation are rarely thrown away.

I believe that Professor Parkinson succeeded completely in this book achieving his first purpose. I will determine through this survey whether I think he succeeded in the second.

I have observed in recent decades in the United States that the reduction in revenue was tried in the 1980's, but because a reduction in spending was politically impossible and that seemingly limitless borrowings were available to fund the annual deficit, that the government-reducing scheme was a failure. I do not think that this disproves Parkinson's second purpose, because I do not think he imagined a government with a fiat currency. The second purpose would hold if government were somehow constrained to spend within its means.

This quote leaps out at me: "When funds are limitless, the only economy made is in thinking. The worst inefficiencies do not stem from a lack of funds, but from an initial failure to decide exactly what the object is. It is this muddled thinking that leads to waste, and often to waste on a colossal scale." If you substitute the concept of "family" or "small business" or "association" or "church" in place of "government" in the preface, the raw and personal truth of these statements becomes clear. If it were my own money and my own decision, I would be inclined to be thrifty and clear on what I spend it.

Next in the series, I will continue with Chapter 1 concerning the rise in taxation over time.