jump to navigation

Denmark and Sustainable Levels of Entitlements April 21, 2013

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

The New York Times(!!!) reporting on Denmark’s realization that its lavish entitlement system is rapidly becoming a problem:

It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is.

It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym “Carina” in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.

Yes, they’ve finally noticed that giving people strong incentives not to work means that they stop working.

I should say point out that this is not a useful insight, at least in the absolute terms I just used. Obviously there’s a range of societal responses to the range of entitlement coverages, so you can’t really say “welfare = moochers” at a statistically significant level. Unfortunately most of the debate seems to be conducted in those sorts of absolute terms.

The real question is: At what point does a welfare system start adversely affecting the economy and government revenues?

Liberals think we’ve got plenty of head room; that there’s essentially no impact of welfare at its current level (after all, Denmark was doing all right with a much higher level of taxations and entitlements). Conservatives are convinced that there are already significant impacts. Who’s right?

I would speculate that the tipping point varies with different societies, and that one of the hallmarks of societies that are successful at higher levels of taxation/entitlements is a sense of loyalty to, and unity with, society and the government. In contrast, when a society has a large number of people who feel disenfranchised, the mooch factor goes way up.

So, I’m hypothesizing that the libs’ focus on diversity, victimization, and class struggle is creating precisely the sort of society that can’t sustain the high level of entitlements they want to see.

Comments»

1. Retired Geezer - April 21, 2013

This paragraph sums it up:

I would speculate that the tipping point varies with different societies, and that one of the hallmarks of societies that are successful at higher levels of taxation/entitlements is a sense of loyalty to, and unity with, society and the government. In contrast, when a society has a large number of people who feel disenfranchised, the mooch factor goes way up.

2. lauraw - April 21, 2013

you can’t really say “welfare = moochers” at a statistically significant level

You can in Connecticut. Neighborhood after neighborhood, block after city block, for miles. Thousands and thousands of healthy young men and women. Nobody with a fucking job. For generations.

It’s mind-boggling that we have supported this for so long.

3. geoff - April 21, 2013

you can’t really say “welfare = moochers” at a statistically significant level

What I mean is, you have to cross a threshold of benefits before you get a lot of moochers. Like, total welfare payments of $50/week aren’t large to get people to stop working, so you can’t say “welfare = moochers” without caveats.

4. geoff - April 21, 2013

But I would agree that we’re past that level, simply based on the numbers:

The 2011 median household income was $50,054, or $137.13 per each day of the year. Assuming the breadwinner of this average household is an hourly employee working 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year, that would put his pay scale at a shade over $25 an hour. Subtract withholding taxes and that wage-earner takes home about $22 for each hour worked.

As taxpayers, these are the ones pushing the car. Now, what about the riders?

According to a recently released Senate Budget Committee report, the total in benefits received — money, food stamps, housing, child care and the administrative costs to implement these programs — comes to a whopping $168 per day. If they were earning this sum, just like our average household breadwinner above — 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year — their hourly wage would amount to almost $31 per hour.

That’s not exactly a fair comparison (i.e., calling admin costs part of a welfare recipient’s take-home pay), but the numbers are still close enough that half of the people are discouraged from working.

5. daveintexas - April 21, 2013

I think this week for the rest of the year I’m earning money for me instead of the government.

Yay.

6. lauraw - April 22, 2013

*hitches self up to gravy wagon*

PULL HARDER GUYS! MOMMA NEEDS SOME NEW BEJEWELED FLIPFLOPS.

AND ONE OF THEM TORTILLA SALAD BOWL MAKERS.

*puts together big list of useless shit to buy with public money*

7. Michael - April 22, 2013

Economists, borrowing from the insurance industry, refer to this problem as “moral hazard.” (A term learned during the Reagan years because of Gilder’s treatise for the Reaganites, Wealth and Poverty)

The basic reality is that if you spread the risk (whether through public programs or private insurance) against anything, you always increase the incidence of what you are insuring against. That applies to fires, weather damage (floods, tornadoes, hurricanes), the need for C-sections or adderall or any other type of health care, auto accidents, business failures (the bankuptcy code is an insurance plan) and on and on. So, insuring against poverty necessarily creates more poverty.

The societal benefits of spreading risk are clear — everybody can relax, and beneficial risk-taking behaviors (starting a business, for example) are encouraged because there is a floor to the adverse consequences of the risk. People know they won’t starve to death. The detriment is moral hazard, people may now be careless about their health or driving habits, burn down their own failing business, build in flood plains, or breed irresponisibly because baby mommas are the cash cows for the community. These people are acting rationally in response to reduced risks.

As Geoff says, the break-even point is cultural, and “moral hazard” precisely identifies the issue. There MUST be a sense of morality that is external, that is, seperate from individual self-interest, or the moral hazard of any insurance scheme will be self-defeating in the long term.

[In other words, as always, the solution is Pure Lutheran Theology™.]

8. Michael - April 22, 2013

You can apply this reasoning to the military as well. If you think of the military as an insurance plan to socialize the risk of war, it is axiomatic that the more military you buy, the more wars you will get involved in.

Hmmm. Calls to mind the numerous observations about America that in modern times we somehow managed get involved in more wars in more places than anyone else, by a wide margin. We have also been the gold standard for military spending, even though our secure location and huge economy would suggest that such military spending as a percent of GDP should be low.

You may suggest that we are not secure from ICBMs, which is true, but we started and goaded the nuclear arms race, not the Russians who were understandably scared by us. And we put nukes in Turkey before the Russkies tried to put them in Cuba.

We are also not secure from terrorism, but aircraft carrier task forces do not address that problem.

Remimber Eisnhower’s farewell speech and his famous warning about the “military-industrial complex”? I suggest that he knew first-hand about the moral hazard of military spending.

So, now I’ll just out myself and take the heat. I’m far from being an isolationist, but conservatives are blatantly wrong about their bone-headed and simplistic support for anything military. Of course we need a strong military with force-projection capabilites, because we are a world power with an interest in maintaining a relatively calm planet, and an advanced economy with global supply lines.

But, for example, Europe can and should pay for its own defense. Their military spending is pathetic because they are free riders on the American taxpayer, which goes a long way towards explaining why they can afford lavish welfare schemes. NATO is an anachronism. And jeebers, why do we think God appointed us to try to sort out a cesspool like the Middle East.

Let’s take a specific example. Conservatives are wrong to automatically accuse Obama of being some kind of simp because he is skeptical about military spending and overseas engagement. Obama, in my opinion, was exactly right when he decided the Libyan conflict was Europe’s problem, at a time when many conservatives and Europeans were baying for American “leadership” (which means money). Libyan oil goes to Europe, Libya is right next door to Europe and easily reachable from their military airfields and bases, and Obama prudently decided that America would play a supporting role while Europe does the heavy lifting.

Obama is also right that we now have more leftover nukes on the planet, America in particular, than anybody knows what to do with. I’ve read about war-gaming exercises indicating that half our nukes may be garage junk — an old appliance in good condition with no purpose. And the maintenance is expensive. Go to Los Alamos and take the tour. I have. They will be happy splain how they maintain and upgrade a huge stockpile of nukes without testing them. The program is awesome, in particular the computer simulations of how a nuke works, from the effects of a detonation right down to the shelf life of every type of wire insulation. Unlike climatologists, the bomb guys actually have high quality real life data to create a model that works. At Los Alamos, they are happy to advertise to the entire world the fact that we know about 2/3 of our massive nuclear inventory works (1/3 is in maintance at any given time), and can strike anywhere at any time and wipe anybody off the map. Three times over.

I personally want Obama or any president to be skeptical about the military. That’s why we put a civilian in charge of the guys in uniform.

9. Michael - April 22, 2013

I know, you are sputtering and saying, but but but . . .WE BEAT THE NAZIS!

No we didn’t. The Russians did. We kinda helped out some after they did the heavy lifting. They still get annoyed about us claiming to have won that war.

And oh by the way, we started the war with Japan by rashly threatening to cut off their energy supplies, which is to say, threatening their national survival. The so-called “sneak attack” on Pearl Harbor was defensive.

10. Michael - April 22, 2013

Stalin was actually the prudent guy at the time. He decided to make nice with Hitler and let western Europe deal with German aggression. After all, western europeans had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries, and was the region more prone to wars than anywhere else. Why get involved? Hitler was the dumbfuck who broke the deal and opened up an eastern front for no good reason, which ultimately led to his demise.

11. Michael - April 22, 2013

*scrolls up*

I think my motorcycle needs more wax.

12. daveintexas - April 22, 2013

The DoD is government, and full of government largess and waste, just like any other governmental agency. Our armed forces are well trained and effective, but the machine that feeds them is every bit as bloated as the Department of _______________ (fill in the blank they all suck).

13. Michael - April 22, 2013

I’m not criticizing government waste at the DoD or anywhere else. That’s just an unfortunate byproduct of goods and services provided by any instrumentality that operates outside the free market by means of coercion.

The issue is, assuming waste, when do the moral hazards associated with any scheme to socialize risk, whether private auto insurance or government flood plain insurance, outweigh the benefits.

And the answer is — depends on how much morality is available, which I think was exactly Geoff’s point. My point is that this does not just apply to poverty programs, a favorite whipping boy for conservatives, it also applies to how many Marines you really need.

We make fun of Obamaphones, but is that necessarily a bad idea if it was properly administered? In our economy, as a practical matter it is impossible for people to break out of poverty and enter the tax-paying labor force if they are off the telecom grid.

14. Michael - April 22, 2013

And just for the record, for me the iPhone 5 is a necessity, not a luxury, and if I can’t afford one I should be allowed to steal one from Dave.

15. geoff - April 22, 2013

But, for example, Europe can and should pay for its own defense.

In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, NATO made a lot of sense. After the collapse, not so much. But since Putin has given the finger to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, I think it makes sense again.

Obama is also right that we now have more leftover nukes on the planet, America in particular, than anybody knows what to do with.

The war-gaming that was done back in my day doesn't really agree with this, and that was in an environment where China wasn't much of a threat. Of course, that was based the MAD philosophy, where we had to be able to absorb a first strike and still unleash an overwhelming attack on the Soviet Union. Interestingly, it looks like China may have abandoned its “no first use” policy as of last week.

I do agree we should draw down our tactical nuclear inventory, because I don’t think we have the will to use it. If the Europeans still want tactical nukes as their fall-back to a Russian invasion, then let them build, maintain, and decide to exercise them.

The Russians did. We kinda helped out some after they did the heavy lifting.

I think there’s plenty of credit to go around. Not to mention that we were busy with the Pacific effort as well.

And oh by the way, we started the war with Japan by rashly threatening to cut off their energy supplies, which is to say, threatening their national survival. The so-called “sneak attack” on Pearl Harbor was defensive.

Meh. It would have threatened their war effort and their occupation of China, from which they could have simply withdrawn and had their oil shipments resumed. They made a choice to try to cripple our Pacific fleet so they’d have time to grab oil from the East Indies.

**************************************
Overall, the military budget is near historical lows in terms of % of federal budget and % of GDP. That’s not to say that there isn’t room to consider budget cutting, but when you have a spending problem, you usually look to cut the programs that are near historical highs, not historical lows. But Obama, like Clinton, puts the military on the chopping block first as a matter of instinct, not deliberation.

16. Michael - April 22, 2013

Meh. It would have threatened their war effort and their occupation of China, from which they could have simply withdrawn and had their oil shipments resumed.

Sure, they could have “simply withdrawn” in response to chest-thumping by presumptuous gaijin. So why were we, on the far side of a ginormous ocean, presuming to arbitrate millenium-old rivalries amongst Japan, China, Korea, and the tribes of Southeast Asia? What the fuck were we doing in the Philippines in the first place? It was a sideshow to the Spanish-American War, where our TR-style jingoism angered and alarmed everyone. We should have been busy finishing the recent (as Asians reckon) War of 1812 and conquering Canada, which had the temerity to burn the White House, fer cryin’ out loud. I still say those Canucks are overdue for a good ass-whuppin.

Pearl Harbor was Japan sending a deserved warning shot across the bow of an immature world power, urging us to calm down and mind our own beeswax — a warning shot we had every reason to anticipate. They were as shocked as we were by the overwhelming success of the attack, due largely to our own bungling, the U.S. Navy in particular.

The fight at Pearl Harbor should have been a draw at worst, but we had too many ships loafing and stationary in the harbor, all our planes on the ground because the radar intercept of the attack was ignored, and we were understaffed and unprepared on a Sunday afternoon.

17. wintersetruss - April 22, 2013

It’s scary to think that if Hitler had held back on invading the Soviet Union until AFTER Britain collapsed due to the Blitz and “Operation Sea Lion” (the planned invasion from France – think D-day in reverse), that war could have had a different outcome. I don’t think Germany could have ever “won” the war in the sense that they would have been the Last Man Standing, but they damn well could have waited to strike Russia until after they had taken Britain. With no close island to allow for the unprecedented buildup that the D-Day invasion required, I don’t think it could have been accomplished. At least not on that level. So “Fortress Europe” would have been more than an empty boast.

So you’ve got Europe united under the Swastika. Then they could have pivoted and devoted most of their attention to the Eastern Front. Without the pinpricks emanating from Britain, Germany & her allies could have rolled all the way into Siberia. Especially since they could have recruited plenty of cannon fodder troops from Latvians & Ukranians who had suffered at the hands of Stalin & his famines & purges.

In that case, how could America get involved in a European war? By invading from Africa? You mean the continent where Italy had already gotten a foothold with the help of Rommel & the Afrika Korps? How about Iceland or Greenland? Staging from Britain, where there was a native population to help prepare was tough enough, try setting up camp in those areas AND preparing an invasion that didn’t involve a “simple” 40 mile sea voyage. Logistical nightmare.

No, it’s scary to think that the stubborn resolve of the British people is the one thing that kept the world from seeing a protracted “cold war” between Germany & America, which would have ended with a “peace accord” that would cede most of Europe to the Bad Guys. Of course, by that time the vast majority of European Jews would have been liquidated, and Jews in our modern world would become as rare as Pro-Life Democratic politicians.

This just reinforces the lesson that Lee Marvin taught us in the sequel to “The Dirty Dozen”: Killing Hitler after the war commenced would have been a BAD thing, because it would have cleared the way for someone who might have used the military more wisely. Kill him in ’33? Sure, that might be enough. But kill him in ’39? That gives them plenty of time to get their shit together.

Thank you Lee Marvin. Your wisdom is epic.

18. Michael - April 22, 2013

It would have threatened their war effort and their occupation of China, from which they could have simply withdrawn and had their oil shipments resumed.

And no again. Japan had virtually no domestic energy resources (which is why they have a lot of nuclear plants now). We were threatening the collapse of their economy, the first to industrialize in Asia.

19. Michael - April 22, 2013

but they damn well could have waited to strike Russia until after they had taken Britain.

Or they could have just left Russia and England alone, and consolidated a united Europe west of the Ural Mountains. Italy, France and Spain were already on board and cooperating. Little countries like Holland and Belgium were occupied. There was relatively little resistance and not much damage. The blitzkrieg and tank warfare innovations worked. As usual, technology wins wars. The Germans had won.

A German told me decades ago that Europe had three chances to unify and minimize the plague of their endless wars. The first was Napolean, who failed, the second was Hitler, who failed, and the third was the European Union.

Which ain’t looking too healthy right now, as everyone from the Brits to the Germans to the Scandinavians are starting to realize that everything south of Switzerland is a liability.

20. wintersetruss - April 22, 2013

Actually, Michael, I’ve got to agree with you on Semi-Isolationism. I would submit that Afghanistan & Iraq were instances of us finally cleaning up an infected wound that was threatening to be a constant worry, at least at first. The invasions were justified, and the removals of The Taliban & Saddam were justified. But the nation building? Probably one step too far.

I can see how it happens. The whole “you broke it, you bought it” school of thought and all that. And our efforts in Iraq actually seem to have given that country a fighting chance to change their fate. But our post-Iraq efforts in Afghanistan? Pure charity on our part. Same for Somalia (we should have gone in hard, killed most of the militias & gotten out of the way of the UN “Relief & Rape” squads), Libya and most of our muddled participation in Egypt’s revolution. I don’t know what to think about Bosnia & the rest of the former Yugoslavia. I think that intervention was a good thing, but we probably waited too long to do anything & then what we did was not targeted as well as it should have been done.

The one time we should have gotten off our asses and gone to war for humanitarian grounds? Rwanda. If we had done ANYTHING there, we might have been spared the worst of Afghanistan as well as some of Al Quaeda’s pre-war attacks like the African Embassies and the USS Cole. And that was a case where we could have had the Undisputed Moral Authority to do what needed to be done. Stopping one group from hacking another group to death with machetes? Even Bill Ayres would have a hard time arguing against that war.

21. wintersetruss - April 22, 2013

I don’t know. Leaving Britain unconquered, especially after the fiasco at Dunkirk, would have come back to bite Germany in the ass eventually. Think about it: Without British airfields, there would be no daylight bombing by the 8th Air Force, and no nighttime bombing by British forces. That gives Germany one hell of a chance to replenish their losses in materials on the Eastern Front. And leaving the British unconquered after you’ve defeated their forces in the conquest of continental Europe would just let them bide their time until Germany pivoted towards Russia.

And Russia? Hitler was the first to violate the non-agression pact, but if they hadn’t, Stalin would have done the same thing himself. They had to try to take Russia. Their biggest mistake was not clearing the board before they tried to take down The Bear.

Actually, I think their biggest mistake was wasting the cream of their airborne troops and “special forces” in Crete instead of using them in an invasion of England. The fighting in Crete would have been very different if England was more directly threatened, causing them to pull their forces home for defense. Without the British forces involved, the Axis could have farmed that whole theatre out to the Italians and Romanian allies. Hell, they could have let the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem garrison the island with his Muslim troops, after they had gone on a rampage and killed all the Jews in Palestine, naturally. Point is, they wasted valuable troops, time and material on an island that could have been held by the “scrubs”.

22. Michael - April 22, 2013

I would submit that Afghanistan & Iraq were instances of us finally cleaning up an infected wound that was threatening to be a constant worry, at least at first.

Agreed about Afghanistan, because the Taliban was allowing the country to be a safe harbor for attackes against the west.

Not so Iraq. It was not a terrorist staging ground, and so far as we know, it did not have WMD. More importantly, Saddam was a bad guy but he was just not our problem!. He was Iran’s problem. Once again, Obama and me agree about this.

I’m ambivalent about Rwanda. That war was so rank it hurt to watch it happen. On the other hand, the relationship between the Tutsis and the Hutus is long and evil, with a history of ruthless oppression by the Tutsis that would suggest they were overdue for a comeuppance.

Why would America get involved in that mess?

23. wintersetruss - April 22, 2013

Iraq? There were terrorist training camps there before ’03. They also had WMD’s. We know because Saddam used them on his own people. I don’t think that sometime in the 90’s Saddam said to himself “Hey, you know that nasty stuff that helped me put down the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs? Let’s get rid of it.”

And Iraq WAS Iran’s problem before Kuwait, but they became our problem over time after that defeat. Saddam had to pivot towards Islam instead of being the holdout against the Mullahs to the East.

Maybe my position would be better stated that we should have deposed Saddam in ’91 instead of waiting until ’03. And when we did get rid of him in ’03, we should have gotten him, handed the keys to whatever opposition wasn’t bought & paid for by Iran, and gotten out. But that brings up a point: Before we deposed Saddam and presented the Iraqis with a choice, there WAS no opposition to Saddam that wasn’t part of Iran’s outreach. The people of that country had to get sick of all the killing and terror caused by insurgents who got their orders & weapons from Iran before they could stand up for themselves. So in one sense, we gave them the opportunity to grow up & fend for themselves. Not our job, I know, but better than perodically going in & cleaning out whatever regime cropped up after our quick & dirty battles every 15 years or so.

I think we would both agree that Clinton’s “depends on the meaning of is” weasality during the 90’s emboldened many of America’s enemies. There was no certain fate for anyone who challenged Uncle Sam. But, now that I think about it, there was no certain fate for the d-bags who blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut either. So it can’t ALL be laid at Clinton’s feet.

24. Michael - April 22, 2013

So, in a nutshell, Michael’s Military and Foreign Policy™:

1. Do not invade Russia in the winter.
2. Invade Canada in the summer.
3. Ignore Africa. We should not even have embassies there, except maybe in Cape Town and Lagos. The economy of the entire continent (that matters, i.e., other than subsistence activities) is about the same as Poland or something.
4. Tell Europe to stop being pussies and take care of themselves.
5. Support Israel, and studiously avoid conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites.
6. Pay special attention to friendly and productive relationships with Mexico, our most important neighbor after conquering Canada.
7. Focus on making India, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia a part of America’s community of friends and trading partners.
6. Normalize the relationship with our other big neighbor — Cuba.

25. wintersetruss - April 22, 2013

Malaysia? Now you’re just looking for blog bribery opportunities.

That’s a good idea. You could use the money you get from pimping that country to outfit a group of mercenaries that will undermine Canada’s legitimacy. Why invade them when we can go all “Wild Bill Donovan & the OSS” on their asses *?

* – I use the WW2 example of the OSS instead of the Cold War example of the CIA because I want this effort to succeed.

26. geoff - April 22, 2013

And no again. Japan had virtually no domestic energy resources (which is why they have a lot of nuclear plants now). We were threatening the collapse of their economy, the first to industrialize in Asia.

Incorrect. We told the Japanese that withdrawal from China was a precondition for holding talks to resume oil shipments.

They could have had that oil.

27. Michael - April 22, 2013

But Geoff, you’re avoiding the point. Who were we to set preconditions to talks regarding an ancient rivalry between Japan and China which did not have any substantial effect on us? The Japanese rightly regarded us as impertinent meddlers.

28. geoff - April 22, 2013

Pearl Harbor was Japan sending a deserved warning shot across the bow of an immature world power

Japan was as much an immature world power as anybody, having only finished being pushed around by Europe and the US in the 1800s. No, they thought that “warning shot” was the final shot for the US – they didn’t think we would have the will to carry out a Pacific war effort once our fleet was destroyed.

As to the results of the attack, sure, we bungled badly.

29. Michael - April 22, 2013

And please don’t bring up the “Rape of Nanking” or I’ll start on Wounded Knee and the Fire-Bombing of Dresden. War always causes atrocities.

30. wintersetruss - April 22, 2013

You forgot Sand Creek and “The Trail of Tears”. Both bigger atrocities than Wounded Knee, IMHO.

But, just to be “that guy”, I’ll point out that the Rape of Nanking occured AFTER the Japanese took the City. Dresden happened while the war was still in play. If Dresden had been burned down by an occupying army, your comparison would be more apt.

31. Michael - April 22, 2013

At the time Dresden was destroyed, there was not a formal surrender but the Germans had been defeated and were retreating on all fronts and the war was months from being over. Dresden had no military significance at that point; it was Germany’s seventh-largest city and the biggest that had not yet been bombed. So, Dresden was just the last largely intact big German city. I think there is a consensus that this was a vengeance massacre, plain and simple. (Unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which served a real purpose.)

32. geoff - April 22, 2013

And please don’t bring up the “Rape of Nanking” or I’ll start on Wounded Knee and the Fire-Bombing of Dresden.

No, we had had a commercial interest in China for a hundred years, and the Japanese knew it. We’d been battling with the Japanese over the “Open Door” policy for 40 years. They had already proposed a US-Japan agreement that involved the US helping to convince Chiang Kai-shek to surrender to Japan (acknowledging a US role in China).

We had been “impertinent” for a hundred years, and had a much more worldly presence than the Japanese, as evidenced by Perry’s expedition. And both sides knew that oil was on the table.

Finally, Japan had a 3-year oil reserve w/o the war, and a 1 1/2 reserve w/the war. Were we really threatening their population with the embargo?

33. Michael - April 22, 2013

No, we had had a commercial interest in China for a hundred years, and the Japanese knew it..

Well OK, we had an “interest” in China. After all, it was Chinese labor that built the western side of our transcontinental railroad (according to all the movies I’ve seen about this) and provided the staff and inventory for opium dens.

34. geoff - April 23, 2013

After all, it was Chinese labor that built the western side of our transcontinental railroad (according to all the movies I’ve seen about this) and provided the staff and inventory for opium dens.

But that was a win-win situation, because it motivated them to learn kung fu and make movies.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: