“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
(Terry Pratchett, Men-at-Arms) (emphasis in original)
IMO, one of the most pithy explanations of real-person economics ever.
Which of these songs about misguided maniacs do you prefer?
Both remind me of one of Gahan Wilson's better cartoons: guy is standing in a room surrounded by tables loaded with saws and cutlery with an open trunk in the corner. He's saying on the phone: "Gee, Linda, I'm really sorry you couldn't make it tonight."
I won't say which one I prefer, so I won't prejudice the vote. You'll have to cast your vote in the responses, as I can't make a poll.
The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators
