Redistribution: Seen Vs Unseen

Reply to: Why Taxes are Bad by Miles Kimball

**************************************************

I’m struggling with this! Let’s see if I’m getting the first part right…

1. According to Noah, there isn’t a correlation between taxes and work.
2. According to Noah, you argue that higher taxes make people feel poorer… which encourages them to work more. Therefore there is a correlation between taxes and work. 
3. According to Karl, you argue that when higher taxes provide more benefits… people are encouraged to work less. Therefore there is a correlation between taxes and work. 

So whether or not there is a correlation between taxes and work depends on 1. their size and 2. on how they are spent. When taxes are wasted (no benefit)… people feel poorer and work more. When taxes aren’t wasted (benefit)… people feel richer and work less. 

What about the statistics though? What does it mean that people work the same amount whether taxes are low (2000s) or high (1960s)? When taxes were high… people should have felt poorer… especially if the taxes were wasted. Therefore, people should have worked more (= 9 hours/day). If the high taxes weren’t wasted… then people wouldn’t have felt as poor… and they wouldn’t have worked as much…. (= 8 1/2 hours/day). However, people worked the same amount as when taxes were low. Therefore… uhhhhh… ouch, my brain. LOL… this reminds me of why I didn’t pursue econ at UCLA. 

Let me try and get back to more solid ground. You point out that GDP would drop if parents did something beneficial like spending more time raising their kids rather than working more. Doesn’t it matter though when the GDP is measured? Shouldn’t we see an increase in the next generation’s GDP as a result of all the extra tender loving care (TLC) that they received while growing up? If so, then the issue isn’t with the GDP… but when it’s measured. And if we don’t expect to see a future bump in GDP… then how could it really be argued that the extra TLC is truly beneficial? To be clear, my objective here really isn’t to defend GDP as a tool…. but to highlight Bastiat’s point…

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

Here’s what you wrote in What is a Supply-Side Liberal?

In calling myself a liberal, I am saying that in addition to an attachment to the liberty, limited government, constitutionalism, and rule of law emphasized by Classical Liberalism, I hold to a view based on both classic Utilitarianism and contested elements of modern economic theory that, generally speaking, a dollar is much more valuable to a poor person than to a rich person, and that therefore, there is a serious benefit to redistribution that must be weighed against the serious distortions caused by the usual methods of redistribution.

I wholeheartedly agree that a dollar is much more valuable to a poor person than to a rich person. So it’s a given that redistribution would increase total utility. Yet, I’m entirely against redistribution.

With GDP I argued that the issue is when it’s measured… and it’s entirely the same thing with utility. I’m extremely confident that we’d see a sharp increase in total utility if we measured it immediately after redistribution. This is the first effect… which is seen and favorable. But what about the unseen? What about the subsequent effects? The subsequent effects would be disastrous because productivity would plummet. 

Imagine if, rather than redistributing money from rich to poor… we redistributed money from smart to stupid. Would you oppose or support such a redistribution? Would it make a difference if you knew, for a fact, that it would immediately result in a massive spike in total utility? Personally, I would strongly oppose such a redistribution even if the first effect was favorable. This is because the second effect would be a huge decrease in productivity… which would lead to an even greater decrease in utility.

Putting society’s scarce resources into the wrong hands could certainly result in an immediate increase in total utility (first effect = seen)… but it would most certainly decrease productivity (second effect = unseen)… which would soon result in a greater decrease in total utility. We’d suffer a net loss of utility. 

Let’s say that you and I are stranded on an island. Food is scarce. You have one packet of eggplant seeds. Is redistribution of those seeds a good thing? Should we focus entirely on who would be happier to have the seeds? Should we focus entirely on fairness and divide the seeds equally? Or should we focus entirely on productivity and determine who has a greener thumb? If your thumb was greener, then redistribution would decrease productivity. If my thumb was greener, then redistribution would increase productivity. Given that our goal is for food to be far more abundant… then clearly we should focus entirely on productivity.

Markets work because the focus isn’t on utility/fairness/equality… the focus is entirely on productivity (results/abundance). And because the focus is entirely on productivity… the outcome is a greater total amount of utility. 

Markets place scarce resources in the most capable hands. Taxes are bad when, and only when, they result in the redistribution of money/resources/influence from more capable hands to less capable hands. Unfortunately, this is guaranteed to occur with our current system. 

Right now we don’t have a market in the public sector. We have socialism in the public sector. Socialism fails because government planners fail to place scarce resources in the most capable hands. This is why I’m entirely against redistribution. If we created a market in the public sector by allowing people to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism FAQ)… then taxes would cease to be bad. Society’s scarce resources would no longer be placed in less capable hands. 

I should probably rewind a bit and emphasize that I’m definitely not saying that poor people are stupid. I’m saying that if you know people who are smart but poor… then you probably have a theory as to why they are poor… and your tax allocation decisions would communicate your theory to the rest of society. If your theory is that they were failed by the education system… or by a lack of employment opportunities… or by closed borders… then you’d allocate your taxes accordingly. Creating a market in the public sector would allow for a multitude of theories to be simultaneously tested… which would greatly decrease the time it takes to uncover the truth. 

The truth regarding markets is that people don’t choose to place their hard-earned money into random hands. If we’re going to make the effort and take the time to earn money… then we really don’t want to see our limited time/effort/money/life flushed down the toilet. This fundamentally basic concern gives consumers the maximum incentive to place their hard-earned cash in the most capable/productive hands. So it’s the biggest problem when the results of this powerfully productive process are overridden by government planners who have infinitely less incentive and information than society as a whole does. Massive amounts of money/resources/influence will be placed in less capable hands, productivity will plummet, and everybody will suffer as a result. Redistribution subverts the true will of the people and greatly diminishes their welfare. 

It’s true that I don’t have a very strong grasp on the distortionary aspects of how taxes are collected… but I’d be very surprised if this possible problem is anywhere as harmful as the problem of having socialism in the public sector. I’m pretty sure that socialism is just as defective for public goods as it is for private goods. Therefore the spending, rather than the taxing, should be our greatest concern. 

Rights vs Results

Reply to: I Agree with Milton Friedman! by James Kwak


**********************************************

This is kinda a strawman. A “rights” based argument for property ownership is an extremely flimsy argument. Is it even an argument? The bible says, “thou shall not steal”. That’s not an argument… it’s a divine decree.

From the economic perspective… the issue really isn’t “rights”… it’s “results” (aka abundance).

Bob calls himself a “maker”. Should Bob keep his money? From the economic perspective… the answer depends on whether taking his money increases or decreases abundance.

If you want to argue that Bob has skills… then taking his money will decrease abundance. If you want to argue that Bob doesn’t have skills and just got lucky… then why are you also arguing that we should take his money? Perhaps you’re actually arguing that Bob is always lucky?

If you want to argue that Bob is always lucky… then your redistribution argument would have some logical basis. But it sure wouldn’t have any economic basis. Taking money from Lucky Bob would decrease abundance. This is because Lucky Bob consistently manages to invest in beneficial ventures. For example, he invested in Uber from the get go. Did you? I sure didn’t.

Getting back to the bible… the most relevant story is the parable of the talents. Taking gold from the most skilled and giving it to the least skilled would certainly decrease abundance.

In terms of fighting poverty… decreasing poverty depends on increasing opportunity. And increasing opportunity depends on increasing abundance. Abundance is a function of how society’s limited resources are used.

Moreover, what is a resource today may cease to be one tomorrow, while what is a valueless object today may become valuable tomorrow. The resource status of material objects is therefore always problematical and depends to some extent on foresight. An object constitutes wealth only if it is a source of an income stream. The value of the object to the owner, actual or potential, reflects at any moment its expected income-yielding capacity. This, in its turn, will depend on the uses to which the object can be turned. The mere ownership of objects, therefore, does not necessarily confer wealth; it is their successful use which confers it. Not ownership but use of resources is the source of income and wealth. — Ludwig Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

Also…

Taxes upon transfer, besides the mischief of pressing upon capital, are a clog to the circulation of property. But, has the public any interest in its free circulation? So long as the object is in existence, is it not as well placed in one hand as in another? Certainly not. The public has a perpetual interest in the utmost possible freedom of its circulation; because by that means it is most likely to get into the hands of those, that can make the most of it. Why does one man sell his land? But because he thinks he can lay out the value to more advantage in some channel of productive industry. And why does another buy it? But because he wishes to invest a capital, that is lying idle, or less productively vested; or because he thinks it capable of improvement. The transfer tends to augment the national income, because it tends to augment the income of the two contracting parties. If they be deterred by the expenses of the transfer, those expenses will have prevented this probable increase of the national income. — J.B. Say, A Treatise on Political Economy

Markets work because it’s up to consumers to decide how well producers are using society’s limited resources. Consumers, with their infinite variety, preferences and circumstances, are the ultimate judges. Aka “consumer sovereignty”. It’s up to consumers to decide, for themselves, whether Bob has adequately earned their money.

Let’s review…

If Bob is skilled, and you take money from him, then you’re subverting the true will of the people. You’re also decreasing abundance which decreases opportunity which increases poverty. If, on the other hand, Bob just got lucky… then there’s no point in taking money from him. Chances are just as good that his money will circulate soon enough on its own.

So I’m against taxes because I’m for abundance. Actually, I’m not against taxes per se… I’m against the absurdity of allowing congresspeople to allocate them. If 500 government planners were better than an entire nation of people at allocating for abundance… then socialism would have worked. The absolute absurdity of our age is the belief that socialism somehow manages to succeed for the public sector despite the fact that it fails for the entire economy. Socialism fails just as much for public goods as it does for private goods. Taking consumer choice out of the equation will always have logically detrimental consequences.


**********************************************


Reply to: The False Tradeoff Between Efficiency and Equity by Haynes Goddard


**********************************************

The heart of efficiency isn’t just opportunity cost… it’s also the choices we make… which depend largely on our preferences and circumstances.

A vegetarian looks at a menu and rules out any dishes that contain meat. Then she looks at the prices and imagines how much value she’d derive from the alternative uses of her money. She also recalls the last time that she had each dish. Perhaps she also counts calories and considers nutritional value… or lack thereoff.

After an immense amount of computation/calculation…most of which occurs as a background process… she filters out all the other options and orders a salad. The waiter brings her a steak. It’s a non sequitur because the conclusion (steak/supply) doesn’t follow from the premise (her vegetarian preference).

It’s an inefficient allocation of resources.

As we can see, efficiency is easily and reasonably defined by the supply’s distance from a consumer’s demonstrated preference.

Except, you’re not defining efficiency in terms of consumer preference. You’re just throwing opportunity cost out there without any recognition or acknowledgement of all the other relevant parts. This vagueness allows you to argue that efficiency is a type of fairness.

Efficiency really isn’t fairness. Efficiency is the most valuable uses of society’s scarce resources. And value is a function of choice, sacrifice, preference, circumstance….which can all be rolled into “demand”. How well supply matches demand is a matter of efficiency.

Fairness disregards demand. Fairness is voters reaching into each other’s pockets. Fairness is an argument made by people who think that abundance is a function of taking rather than trading. Fairness is about diverting scarce resources away from more valuable uses. Fairness is a function of economic ignorance.

There’s nothing false about the tradeoff between efficiency and equity. There’s a very distinct and concrete tradeoff. We either have efficiency and abundance or equity and scarcity. These two things are diametrically opposed.

To be clear… because of the free-rider problem… taxation can increase efficiency… if, and only if…taxpayers are free to choose where their taxes go.

What are Taxes Worth?

In my post on A Wife Swapping Economy...I predicted that Peter Boettke would be the first economist to fully endorse pragmatarianism.  Here's my extended response to his blog entry...Don Boudreaux on Ludwig Lachmann...

*******************************************

In the comments, Tom Palmer shared his favorite essay by Lachmann, "The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth".  I read it twice and found lots of great clues.  Here's one..

Moreover, what is a resource today may cease to be one tomorrow, while what is a valueless object today may become valuable tomorrow. The resource status of material objects is therefore always problematical and depends to some extent on foresight. An object constitutes wealth only if it is a source of an income stream. The value of the object to the owner, actual or potential, reflects at any moment its expected income-yielding capacity. This, in its turn, will depend on the uses to which the object can be turned. The mere ownership of objects, therefore, does not necessarily confer wealth; it is their successful use which confers it. Not ownership but use of resources is the source of income and wealth. - Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

...which you can compare to this clue that Bastiat offered before Lachmann was even born...

If the socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is, however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it. It is quite evident that organized charity would, in this case, do much more permanent harm than temporary good. - Bastiat, Justice and Fraternity

...which you can compare to this clue that Turgot offered before Bastiat was even born...

There is no need to prove that each individual is the only competent judge of this most advantageous use of his lands and of his labor. He alone has the particular knowledge without which the most enlightened man could only argue blindly. He alone has an experience which is all the more reliable since it is limited to a single object. He learns by repeated trials, by his successes, by his losses, and he acquires a feeling for it which is much more ingenious than the theoretical knowledge of the indifferent observer because it is stimulated by want. - Turgot, The Turgot Collection

Our most valuable resource isn't any of our material resources...it's our individual "foresight"...our own "particular knowledge"...which I've taken to refer to as our unique perspectives...Perspective Matters - Economics in One Lesson.  Our unique perspectives allow us to see how limited resources might be used in new, valuable and productive ways.

Yet, for the past 300 years the people who have understood the value of perspectives have argued to limit the scope of government and reduce taxes.  Why didn't they see the value of millions and millions of taxpayers, each with their own unique perspective, having the freedom to use their taxes, the symbolic representation of their own countless sacrifices, to determine the proper scope of government?  Why didn't Turgot or Bastiat or Lachmann or Hayek or Friedman or Buchanan or Boettke or Kling or Rizzo or Caplan or Boudreaux see the value of allowing millions and millions of our most productive perspectives to use their taxes to reveal exactly what the government does that is worth their countless individual sacrifices?

You guys have the power to fundamentally change the debate with liberals.  Why not switch tactics on them?  Why not simultaneously prove that Einstein's definition of insanity doesn't apply to you guys?  Why not try an Aikido move by letting liberals have their taxes in exchange for individual foresight?  Would it be worth it to give up one thing you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more?  That is, of course, the very definition of sacrifice.

Why not have this discussion with liberals?  Discussion is simply free-trade.  It's where two or more people freely exchange their perspectives with each other.  We all value our perspectives... so wouldn't we all stand to benefit by freely trading our perspectives on perspectives?

How would liberals respond to our offering?  Is Paul Krugman really going to argue that his perspective does not matter?  Is Jeffrey Sachs really going to argue that the combined perspectives of 538 congresspeople are more valuable than the combined perspectives of 150 million of our most productive citizens?  Would Krugman and Sachs really argue that, from their perspectives, one use of a limited resource is as good as any?  Would they really argue that, from their perspectives, economics does not matter?  Let's find out!

It Wasn't My Idea

When I was in elementary school I was always getting in trouble for reading books during class.  Nope, not comic books...but books from the class library [1].  I would read pretty much any book that I got my hands on. My friends had it good because I would read a ton of books and then share with them only the very best of the best books.  Music was also eventually added to the same filter-sharing process.

If a friend enthusiastically mentioned that they got so and so's new book or CD I would jokingly ask them who told them about that author/band...even though we both knew that it was me.  Sometimes, just to give them a hard time, I would claim credit for an author/band that I hadn't told them about.

One band I definitely did share with friends was Ben Folds. He has a song called Rockin The Suburbs in which he strongly disclaims the idea of slavery...

In a haze these days
I pull up to the stop light
I can feel that something's not right
I can feel that someone's blasting me with hate
And bass
Sendin' dirty vibes my way
'Cause my great great great great Grandad
Made someones' great great great great Grandaddies slaves
It wasn't my idea
It wasn't my idea
Never was my idea

Some things we deserve credit for, some things we'd like credit for and some things we don't want any credit for.  In my post...Justification for Government...Debbie H. shared the following comment...

Well, if you only want to figure out how to make stealing be a tad less irritating to the victims of the theft, then go right ahead. But if you want to do that, you can't also claim that your ideas don't affect those who are striving for a voluntary society. Because your idea still requires coercion through the threat of violence on your neighbors.

Pragmatarianism is a combination of taxes (coercion) and the invisible hand (choice).  I definitely can't take credit for either taxes or the invisible hand.

Who gets credit for the idea of taxes?  No idea.  What does come to mind is Jesus's response to the question of whether Jews should have to pay taxes to the Roman occupiers..."Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s".  Two thousand years later and we're still not happy about taxes.  Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

In comparison, there's no question who deserves credit for the invisible hand...Adam Smith.  In his book, The Wealth of Nations, he wrote the following...

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

What about pragmatarianism?  Do I get credit for that?  Nope, not according to a member of the facebook libertarian group.  A long time ago he'd read a sci-fi story with the same concept.  He couldn't remember the name of the author and for all I know I might have read the same story and totally forgotten about it...at least on the conscious level.  For fun we can complicate the answer a bit.

How much do you have to modify somebody else's creation before you can call it your own?  It's probably an urban legend but I've heard it said that you only need to change one element of a patented invention for it to lose its patent protection.  That doesn't sound right.

In terms of music, back in the day Vanilla Ice took ("sampled") the catchy bass line from Queen's song "Under Pressure" and added it to his song "Ice Ice Baby" [2].  Initially he did not feel the need to give Queen any credit.  In more recent times, I discovered that nearly all Drum and Bass songs are based on a sample of an old song by a group that I'd  never even heard of.  The group was called The Winstons and in 1969 they released a song called "Amen Brother"...the world's most important 6-sec drum loop.

On the visual side of things...Marcel Duchamp's Mona Lisa comes to mind.  The physical changes he made to the Mona Lisa were very minimal...but still more than the changes he made to his Fountain.  The "Fountain" was actually just a urinal placed on a pedestal.  Kind of the same but completely different was Edward Weston's photograph of a bedpan.  In both cases, without any physical changes...the ordinary became extraordinary.  Adam Smith did the same thing when he showed us self-interest in a positive light.

Would I like credit for the invisible hand?  Sure.  Would I like credit for taxes?  Eh.  Just because taxes have been around forever doesn't make them ethical.  But if we remove taxes from the definition of pragmatarianism then we're just left with the invisible hand.  Adam Smith himself recognized the necessity of some coercion.  From The Wealth of Nations...

When a civilized nation depends for its defence upon a militia, it is at all times exposed to be conquered by any barbarous nation which happens to be in its neighbourhood. The frequent conquests of all the civilized countries in Asia by the Tartars, sufficiently demonstrates the natural superiority, which the militia of a barbarous, has over that of a civilized nation. A well-regulated standing army is superior to every militia. Such an army, as it can best be maintained by an opulent and civilized nation, so it can alone defend such a nation against the invasion of a poor and barbarous neighbour. It is only by means of a standing army, therefore, that the civilization of any country can be perpetuated, or even preserved for any considerable time.

Any coercion over what is absolutely necessary to secure our freedom from harm can be considered unethical.  Some people have a narrow definition of harm (negative liberties) while other people have a broad definition of harm (positive liberties).

Whether your definition of "harm" is broad or narrow...pragmatarianism can only positively affect those who are striving for a voluntary society.  Here are three things that I have no doubt of...

1. Voluntary organizations can provide all the same public goods that the state currently provides.    
2. Voluntary organizations can provide most of these goods more efficiently than the state.
3. Opportunity costs would ensure that tax payers would choose the most efficient option.

For example, if voluntary organizations provide better public education than the state does...then less and less people would allocate their taxes to the department of education.  Voluntary organizations can make most state organizations completely redundant.  

[1]Daniel Boone is one person I remember reading about.  There really should be more historical fiction books for kids.   "there is nothing to be learnt from a Professor, which is not to be met with in Books." - Hume
[2]Ok, I'll admit that at the time I could recite all the lyrics from "Ice Ice Baby"

Uninformed Taxpayers

One criticism of pragmatarianism that crops up fairly frequently is that "other" people would make uninformed allocation decisions with their taxes.  To address this criticism we can compare three different groups...the general public, taxpayers and congress.  

Taxpayers are better educated than the general public.  In fact, the more educated somebody is the more money they earn and the more money they earn the more taxes they have to pay.  Here's a diagram from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that illustrates the strong correlation between education and income...

To give you an idea of how much taxes the general public would have to work with...the bottom 40% of the US population owns less than 1% of the wealth.  

Would taxpayers make more informed allocation decisions than congress?  In a pragmatarian system every taxpayer would ask themselves that question.  If they answered "no" then they would give all or some of their taxes to congress.  If they answered "yes" then they would allocate their taxes themselves.

Of course, the tax allocation decisions of congress are also a public good.  The total quantity of revenue congress received would reflect how much taxpayers valued that public good.

It's important to note that just because somebody is educated doesn't necessarily mean that they are informed.  It just means that they have reasonable critical thinking skills.  Lobbyists currently provide congress with information in order to help make them make informed decisions.  In a pragmatarian system lobbyists would also be motivated to share that information with taxpayers.

Congress as a group can only process a certain amount of information.  Allowing taxpayers to decide how their taxes are allocated would expand the quantity of information that factors into how taxes are allocated.  It would also more accurately reflect the values of taxpayers.  

Justification for Government

On Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog I was asked..."Do you have a justification for government?".  I'm guessing that the person who asked the question is an anarcho-capitalist so that's how I'll approach it.

The founder of anarcho-capitalism, Murray Rothbard, really hated the state.  He said if there was a button that would completely destroy all of government in an instant...then he would push that button until his thumb blistered.  If, after pushing that button, it turned out that a state was necessary…then what?  Do we just hit ctrl + z?

To his credit, Rothbard didn’t just hate the state because he hated paying taxes.  He wrote numerous books with detailed explanations how the free-market could provide all public goods better than the state.  Were his explanations any good?  Liberal academics didn’t think so…they were considerably more threatened by the limited government ideas of Robert Nozick.

If the free-market can provide all public goods better than the government can, then is government justified?  It’s a Catch 22 though because the only way we can truly know if government is redundant is by getting rid of government.  Most would agree this approach is too risky…and since we live in a democracy…we have to take the majority’s opinion into consideration.  

Rather than one button that would destroy government in one fell swoop…what if all tax payers had a button that when pushed would deprive redundant government organizations of their tax dollars?  This is the pragmatarian approach.

If a government organization is redundant…but none of your taxes fund its existence…is there any reason to hate that government organization?

I’d say that at least 99.9% of people think at least one government organization is absolutely necessary.  For you .1% of people that think otherwise…the solution is simply to work together to provide free-market alternatives to that one government organization.  

The more say people have how their taxes are spent the more justified a government is.  The American Revolution occurred because people were being taxed without representation.  

The current government is only partially justified because people only have a very imperfect say with regards to how their taxes are spent.  They lose their say if the person they vote for is not elected and there's no guarantee that a representative will accurately represent the interests of the people who voted for them.

Incidentally, in contrast to the anarcho-capitalist perspective of hating the state...Reason magazine shared five reasons why libertarians should love the state.  My favorite is number #4..."Government bashing alienates those you want to reach"...

Incessant government-bashing may make you feel good, but alienates most everybody who knows and loves a police officer, firefighter, teacher, social worker, anyone who has ever collected an unemployment check, and anyone who saw NASA put a man on the moon.