The Pankian Metaphor 3091

I have no problem with this.

Agreed.

Right. I want momentarily drift the thread. There is a word or phrase for what I'm trying to talk about (which your premise seems to ignore); I want to say intangible but I don't think it's a correct usage. I pay school taxes. I have no kids and no plans to have kids. Yet I do not mind throwing money into this pool (unless it's used to build schools that won't last two years but that's wise usage of funds). I also have a Honda Civic which needs a refill of fuel every three months. I also don't mind paying the gas tax IIF it goes towards maintenance of roads (Mbutt. doesn't but that's because they're crook^WDemocrats). I benefit indirectly from these insbreastutions and understand that spreading the cost burden ensures that the insbreastutions will continue. To delay my part of that payment until I purchase the production of those insbreastutions is years too late. It will ensure that the insbreastutions disappear.

Yes. This is an interesting question. We need an expert who has dug ditches.

Shouldn't the question be at what point does this increase of usage break even. For instance, Barnes&Noble advertise this 10% club card of theirs. The upfront cost of this card is $25. So I have to buy $250 worth of books-year before I can start "saving" a penny. And now I just forgot where I was going...

A lot of that truck usage is for out-of-season goods. Shouldn't this be a factor in the usage? It's really nice to buy lettuce in the winter.

That's real interesting question. How in the world does one determine it?

Something tells me that it shouldn't be linear. But I have no idea why it's not an n::m ratio.

I don't think so. Does it cost more to throw tar in potholes each spring (this means huge holes) or to throw a handful of tar when the holes are still little? I think constant care is less expensive overall (this includes traffic tieups) than saving all the repair for one time-year. Again my gut says that the above question isn't a linear function.

This state's atbreastude is Federal government. This means that Utah funds our excesses and visa versa.

But it is a good question that seems to always be in some debate. A similar problem is baby boomers getting old and cranky and feeble. I don't have an answer. It needs lots of discussions.

I don't understand this question.

BAH