"If the Government can create money, why should not it create all that everybody wants? Why should anybody work for a living? ... Why should we have any limit put to the volume of our currency?"

So asked an advocate of the gold standard in the publication "Cheap Money" back in 1892. Today, the evasion of that question is reaching its climax. We haven't had a gold standard for a long time. It's no longer seriously debated. It's not even on the political radar screen. But the government's solution to the current economic mess is to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on "public works" projects and bailing out bankrupt, formerly for-profit industries. In short: Nationalization of most of the economy with the aid of government printing presses. Already, the value of the dollar is falling and it's predicted by most economists to continue doing so. And what happens if inflation arrives on a scale never before seen in our nation, not even in the 1970s?

It seems that the solution, from the perspective of those who advocate Big Government and Big Dollar, is obvious. Let's pass a law requiring that economic prosperity be mandated. This way, we'll never have to endure recessions or depressions again. All the government has to do is print enough money to make us all rich.

Why did nobody ever think of this before?

Being equal isn't the same as being even. You can be equal in stature -- though not in ability. The opportunity of freedom can be equal for everyone; but this does not guarantee (or require) equality of outcome.

Many people are dishonest about these facts. They resent the fact that they aren't as capable or successful as others, in some respect. Instead of owning this feeling and stating it outright, they complain that things aren't fair; or that equality has in some sense been denied.

This is perhaps the single greatest evil of our age. People are allowed to claim injustice when in fact : Some people are simply smarter than others. This is like holding a race and when the fastest runner wins, complaining that the rules were rigged -- since everyone didn't win.

None of us can be the best at everything. Most of us aren't the best at anything. "Best" implies a tiny minority. That's OK, and that's how it is. If you are the best, you're simply being yourself. If you aren't the best, the world is still a better place than if everyone had the same (low or moderate) level of ability. The world rises or falls on the ability of the best to be the best. Why not applaud them rather than resent, criticize, or despise them?

America was a special place, because more than any other civilization in human history, the best were celebrated and honored. They weren't rewarded so much as allowed to be free to enjoy the consequences of their efforts and abilities. America is still like that in a few respects -- sports, for example -- but for the most part America is no longer like that. We seek to not merely "spread the wealth" but to punish success for daring to rise above the pack. Many of us speak and act as if abilities somehow should be "spread" around, as if excellence could be diluted and distributed among the masses. All I can say is the masses are in for a tough time when the able are no longer allowed to be able.

When you spread the wealth, you get ... equality. When you permit the creation of wealth, you get ... a higher standard of living for all.

When you spread the wealth, you get ... the last of what's left, equally shared. When you leave alone those who create wealth, through the use of their creativity and innovation, you get ... more weatlh for everyone.

Do the math. A society which worships the average gets mediocrity, at first -- and then much worse, later. A society which worships the best and the brightest gets the best of everything. No, the best of everything doesn't come in equal packages. But there are packages for everyone, assuming they earn them.

Take your choice: Not equal, but everyone richer, and getting richer all the time. Or: Equal, but declining in wealth all the time.

I get all this. What I don't get is why or how pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into these companies is suddenly going to make them profitable. I understand that those who now control Washington don't really care about profit. In fact, they got elected telling people that profit and capitalism are largely bad. What these politicians do care about are the labor unions. How labor unions are supposed to survive without profit generated by capitalism is anybody's guess. The politicians also care about forcing automakers to manufacture environmentally friendly cars. If they bail out the auto companies, it's easier to force them to do this. Yet, if environmentally friendly cars don't sell when private capitalists own GM and Ford, then why will they suddenly start to sell when the government takes over GM and Ford? No answer is given because the question is never asked. Why is the question never asked?

The premise beneath all this is simple: Government officials think they are smarter and more capable than capitalists. They think they're much more moral too. If this were true, America should have abandoned capitalism (or what's left of it) a long time ago. Instead, America has held on to capitalism more tenaciously than most. In the process, America got a lot more done.

I may end up wrong, but I have a funny feeling that the American automakers are going to get their billions (or is it trillions?) in taxpayer dollars. For all practical purposes, the U.S. government will own them. This will be an example of all out socialism right here in the USA. Socialized cars. Government officials will get their chance to show how much more competent, and how much more virtuous, they supposedly are. America, watch and learn.