Also, corruption is the wrong word for this - inefficiency is what I really meant. Inefficiency is inevitable in any system that is not perfect.

I'm not sure you're there yet. I'm not sure "inefficient" is that.

Or the woodcarver could go to the lumberjack, and arrange to recieve wood in exchange for a share of the profits from the whistleselling operation.

Well, yes, if that were mutually acceptable. Of course, don't forget the lumberjack doesn't process the wood, the lumbermill does.. etc. etc. etc.

But if the people who are standing with rifles were instead making wizbangs, or cleaning up ecologically damaged areas, or performing surgery, or teaching others how to do useful things, or...

Well, they do do some of those things. Surgery in particular.

But the problem is that you can't realistically have a modern (offensive) army by grabbing a rifle and marching into the field.

The French skimped on the Armies between 1919 and 1940. When the German Army crashed over the border.... they hadn't had time to prepare.

Now how do those "savings" account for the costs of the next few years?

Or was it a false savings? Pinching pennies and losing dollars.

We have chosen to increase our security at the cost of some inefficiency

That, and sometimes the cost is higher if you don't prepare. Its like, say, disaster recovery. How much does it cost to recover if you lose your data center? How much if you are prepared? Its possible you'll spend "more" to not have the downtime, more than it would cost to repurchase the whole data center, for instance - but then you have to factor in the cost of the time, and maybe you don't HAVE the money.

For example. Say you spend $100 a year to have a DR plan, somewhere. Your data center would cost $500 to totally replace.

So you have a disaster, and the DC is offline. So the $100 you spent now brings your DC back online.

If you only use it once every 10 years? Then you spend double the cost of replacing your whole DC... right? But if you don't *have* $500 available?

If the downtime in the meantime tanks the business?

Its insurance, the whole concept. Applies to the military, too.

He didn't build it. He inherited the money from his parents, and used it to buy up real estate through a broker. Since the day he was born, he has not had to do anything.

But he *did* do something. (and inheritance is really another tangent). He took his money, bought land, and used his money to build where you live.

That's STILL something. Otherwise, *you*'d have to do that. Right?

I understand the maintinence angle, but the whole "ownership" thing seems suspicious to me. "Ownership" of a property that is not being used, but kept off the market to increase the value of the remaining properties of its type

Did you have to build your domicile? Or were you able to move in with no/little delay to a ready-built place that's suitable?

(CF high-efficiency carbeurators, SCSI hard drives,

That's another issue. (And I don't believe in the concept of the "high-efficiency carb", unless you can show some *proof* of that. There are lots and lots of people working on engines and, if there were such a carb, it would be available... Its a common "over simplified" story, that there's a magical carb somewhere.. (its called fuel injection, really. :))

SCSI hard drives cost more because they're rarer. IDE is made in much bigger bulk, and the electionics on the SCSI interface cost more. Not as much as the differential, but then again, the market bears more for them.

Of course, I'm also in favor of keeping wetlands from being developed to protect their untampered state, as well as the ecology as a whole, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite there...

That's another issue... the whole issue of "wetlands". And trust me, there's a ton of misinformation out there. We won't go into it, but trust me, "wetland development" is a morass. :)

He skims off the top of other people doing the work for him, existing solely by the labor of others.

But he has, by providing the money. That's his contribution. Remember, because of his money, you didn't have to build a place to live, you didn't have to locate land, and get the permits and permissions and everything. You got a ready to live house - because of his money.

Ah, I trade my pay monthly for somebody to initially build and then maintain the domicile I live in. But what if somebody is getting paid not to do that?

Paid not to do that?

Addison