Boggles the Mind

From the March 26th issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer comes an inspiring story of a charitable and business-savvy citizen. (Sorry, no link available.)

Hal Taussig wears baggy jeans and fraying work shirts that Goodwill might reject. His shoes have been resoled three times. He bought his one suit from a thrift shop for $14.

Okay, fashion isn't quite his thing, so what, right?

And he has given away millions.

Given the fortune that Taussig has made through Untours, his unique travel business, and has given away through the Untours Foundation, you could call him the Un-millionaire. If he so chose, he could be living in a Main Line mansion and driving a Mercedes. But he considers money and what he calls "stuff," beyond what he needs to survive, a burden, an embarrassment.

Finally, a decent human being in the news! Someone who is not entirely motivated by greed and the need to seek fulfillment through the acquisition of "stuff". His is not a charity in the traditional sense. His foundation provides funding to entrepreneurs who have great potential to lift themselves out of poverty but limited access to capital. And Taussig does this the world over, from Philadelphia to South East Asia.

But then Ballista's head almost exploded after reading this sentence near the end of the article:

Taussig and his wife live on Social Security and savings from the modest wages Norma earned as a school secretary and Untours bookkeeper.

He makes millions but relies on government assistance? Now let's consider this. You could argue that he and his wife have been paying into Social Security for years and are entitled to their fair share. Except remember that they are not receiving their own money back. They are receiving money from today's taxpayers. Also remember that every estimates shows that the Social Security trust fund will be running out of money in 20 years or so. For those of you who attended public school, that means that soon there will be too damned many old people and too few working taxpayers to support Social Security. This couple who has no need for taxpayer-financed assistance are not helping any to stave of the looming crisis.

You might also argue that the Social Security payments are really transfers to the entrepreneurs funded by the foundation, since Taussig could simply pay himself more money from the business (which endows the foundation) if he so wished. Maybe, but this functionally means that American taxpayers are subsidizing Taussig twice over because he avoids taxes on the income he forgoes (in lieu of Social Security) from his business or foundation.

Don't get Ballista wrong, Taussig is surely a great guy - he runs a successful business and helps others start their own. Maybe the Social Security payment is small compared to their savings (even though they are described as "modest"). Of course, this now makes Ballista wonder why he has no savings. But isn't it a little perverse that someone who promotes self responsibility, and has the means to truly achieve it, lives partly on government assistance. Don't fool yourself, that's what Social Security is - it is not a personal retirement system. "A hand up, not a hand out." That's a quote in the article from Taussig about the philosophy of his foundation. It would just be nice if, in Taussig's case, that hand was not that of the American taxpayer.

Ballista was recently involved in a conversation about the initial shortages of Play Station 3s. Specifically, the violence at several stores related to the shortages. One person remarked that Sony should be held responsible because they purposely created the shortage and the shortages led to the violence. Therefore, Sony caused the violence.

This is a timely happening - the conversation, not so much the violence - because a common topic Ballista will explore is personal responsibility. Should Sony bear some, or even all, responsibility for the violence? Before thinking critically about this, let us rephrase the accusation. Sony is to be blamed for the injuries shopper received because the company did not make enough video game systems. Muse on that sentence for moment.

Now, did Sony break any laws or regulations? As far as Ballista knows, it is not illegal to manufacture too few units of a product. Representatives of Sony were not present at these stores actively inciting violence among the shoppers, so they can hardly be accused of causing the disorder in this manner. So, this leaves willful neglect. If Sony could have reasonably anticipated the violence, then they should not have shipped too few PS3s. Was it reasonable for Sony to expect that shoppers would be so distraught and frenzied by their inability to purchase a PS3 that they would resort to violence?

Take a breath... Of course not! This is utterly ridiculous. Blame lays solely with the unsocialized infants who committed the acts of violence. Personal Responsibility. What type of skewed priorities and values do these animals have that they think a video game system is worth fighting, and in some cases, killing for? And yes, they are animals; they are unable to control their basest instincts. At least animals act in order to obtain life-sustaining nourishment or shelter. Video games will not sustain your life. In fact, they may actually take it.

Ballista could launch a shot at the shoppers who chose to stand in lines, exposed to the elements, for hours while waiting for a video game system. You people may want to examine your own priorities and values. However, you are at least civil.

Now, Ballista is in a verbose mood, so for the sake of completeness, let us assume that Sony is, in some way, responsible for the violence. If Sony could have predicted that violence would result from a shortage of PS3s, then shouldn't the retailers have been able to predict this, as well, and consequently implicate them for blame. Should the retailers and/or Sony have arranged for heavy security on the launch date? Maybe the National Guard could have been called in to ensure order. If this is what is required to sell a video game system, Ballista shudders to think what might be necessary to sell something actually important, like food. Would the person in the conversation that started this all support turning super markets into fortresses? We'd be one step from the opening scenes of The Running Man.

If Sony is responsible for any wrongdoing here, it is for poor decisions. Nintendo is eating Sony's lunch, and some of those Wii sales likely were because people couldn't find a PS3 to buy. If you are a shareholder of Sony, then maybe you can claim criminal negligence for damage to your portfolio.

In summary:
Sony - foolish management, but not responsible for anything but lost profits.
Video game systems - not necessary to live.
Those who assault or kill to obtain a video game system - unworthy of calling themselves human beings and deserving of mockery, derision, and probably capital punishment.