Who's to blame for the country's economic doldrums?

"Lawyers," said my journalist friend, Clyde.

"Your average lawyer siphons $1 million each year off the nation's output of goods and services. We've got more than 500,000 lawyers in the United States. Add it up yourself--they suck a half-trillion dollars out of the country's gross domestic product."

I haven't checked out Clyde's figures, nor his contention that the United States has more lawyers than all the rest of the world put together.

"Lawyers are economic predators," Clyde added. "In the first place, a great deal of wealth is redistributed by litigation, and much of it sticks to the lawyers' fingers. That makes the cost of products and services higher for all of us, and cuts into tax revenues, which the rest of us have to make up."

Clyde dredges up an example. Awhile back, a California man sued the company owned by himself and his wife. The man also worked at the manufacturing firm and was injured on the job. He hired a lawyer and sued his own company. The man was awarded $122,000 for his injuries. The corporation deducted the sum as a business expense. The IRS claimed $64,000 in income taxes on the lawsuit payment and denied the company's deduction, demanding another $59,000 in taxes. The man and his lawyer appealed the IRS ruling to the U. S. Tax Court, which ruled the man could have his money tax-free and that his company could deduct the full amount of the settlement.

"A guy armed with a sharp lawyer can steal legally," said Clyde. "It's not too different from a guy armed with a gun who steals, when you come right down to it.

"And the actual cost of lawsuits is only the tip of the iceberg," he went on. "There's also a lot of lost productive time and energy spent fighting lawsuits. The number of people who go into the legal profession cuts down the number of potential doctors, teachers and engineers. And who can count the cost of lost innovation because of rampant product-liability litigation?"

I pointed out that, not too many years ago, people often settled their disputes by fighting duels.

"Isn't it better to have them defending themselves with lawyers than with guns and knives?" I reasoned.

Sometimes, reason is lost on Clyde.

"I'm not so sure about that," he said. "If dueling was still allowed, lawyers would be among the people most often challenged. That would trim the number down some."

I wonder if Clyde has considered that journalists might be challenged pretty often, too, if dueling were to make a comeback. But like I said, when Clyde has the bit in his teeth, his thinking doesn't run too deep.