The tourist industry is valuable, of course, as is every business and individual paying taxes for state funded projects. But who is better at deciding what is best for the future of the economy: the politicians or the market? I prefer the market any day.

The Honolulu Advertiser recently ran an impressive letter from eight former and current directors of the state office of economic development who urged the legislature to fund the promotion of tourism. By this, they mean to force every ordinary taxpayer to subsidize the marketing expenses of the number one industry in the state -- as if millions for the Hawaii Visitor's Bureau and the $350 million convention center fiasco hasn't been enough.

Surely Hilton, Hyatt, Aston, and the rest are perfectly capable of paying their own expenses and should risk their own money, not mine. I have other plans for my own hard earned income -- like paying for my daughter's education. You see, I don't have much confidence in government schools. And considering what the politicians have done to the schools, just imagine what they could do to tourism.

The credibility of the directors of the state's office of economic development rests with the success of their 38 years of collective action. But their efforts have not left us with sustained economic prosperity. Indeed, they acknowledge six years of economic stagnation, joblessness, bankruptcies, and declining government revenues and services -- with no relief in sight. That is not a very good recommendation. But even if they had been wise central planners, the money that they want to take doesn't belong to them.

No, the state's primary function is to protect people from criminals -- such as robbers taking money from people by force. Residents of Hawaii and tourists would both be helped most by fighting crime. Indeed, the state should get this done right before attempting other ventures -- such as corporate welfare.

"Proud to be Hawaiian," proclaim the bumper stickers. "Proud to be Black," declare the signs at a rally. "Proud to be a Woman," proclaims the headline in a publication for women.

All this got me to thinking. First, I thought...'am I proud to be a man?' Gosh, I don't think so. Content to be a man? Yes. Even pleased to be a man. But not proud.

To me pride implies accomplishment. An architect is proud of his house design and the contractor is proud of his workmanship and skill as exemplified in the completed house.

A surgeon, leaving the operating table after a difficult, time consuming, surprise filled but successful procedure feels proud and fulfilled. But she doesn't feel proud to have two hands and a nose. Those were given to her, she exercised no choice or skill.

Some may say I'm nit-picking. Perhaps so. But here's the central question: If we misuse the word "proud" by attaching it to God-given characteristics such as gender or skin color, what then are we going to call that feeling of accomplishment when we "ace" the exam after rigorous preparation and skillful execution?

Shall we call it arrogance? Not appropriate, I hope.

Maybe we need a new word to express what members of those groups are trying to say. Many say, "Lucky we live in Hawaii." Why not say, "Lucky I am Hawaiian," or a woman or black. We are all lucky or blessed in many, many, ways and we therefore have much to be eternally thankful for.

Let's not misuse the concept of pride lest it turn into prejudice and arrogance, the next stops along that unpaved language highway.

People can play golf for years and years -- and still be trying to figure it out. For the average golfer, it seems that success usually depends more on luck than smarts.

For investors, however, the opposite hold true: Success depends more on smarts than luck.

Smart investors look for quality, and one way to find quality in a stock or mutual fund is to look at its history of paying dividends. Stocks that have historically paid increasing dividends are companies that grow consistently and stay in favor with investors.

Some stocks are more vulnerable to a change of sentiment -- for example, concept stocks when the concept doesn't work as expected, momentum stocks when the momentum slows, and sector stocks when that particular sector falls out of favor.

No one can accurately predict a stock's short-term results, but stocks with a long-term history of strong results can be more reliable than others. According to John Snyder, portfolio manager for the John Hancock group, "I can say that in a few years, the earnings of steadily growing companies should be substantially bigger than they are today. And if their price-to-earnings ratios stay the same, their valuation should also be much greater."

This concept of steady growth is shared by most portfolio managers looking for quality. Steady growth generally means increasing dividends. One mutual fund, for example, will not invest in a company unless it has paid a dividend in at least nine of the past 10 years. The fund's latest annual reports shows that 68% of the companies in its portfolio raised their dividends that year. Since this fund's inception 44 years ago, shareholders who chose to receive dividends in cash experienced only three years (1982, 1989 and 1992) in which dividends did not increase. In fact, if you have invested $10,000 in this fund at its inception in 1953 and left your investment intact, your dividends along in 1996 would have been $10,007 -- slightly more than your original investment!

Of course, this could not be possible without the steady growth of the companies in which the fund invested. If you had taken your dividends in cash, your original $10,000 investment would have been worth $381,514 on April 30, 1996. The current dividend is only about 2.6%, but look what the growth of capital has done for the size of your regular dividend check.

It's not unusual for mutual funds to look for steadily growing companies with consistently rising dividends. Another major fund that just celebrated its 60th anniversary has an inflexible rule: It will buy only companies that have raised their dividends in each of the last 10 years. Its annual average rate of return, after allowing for all expenses including the 5% sales charge, is 15%, and it has had only one down year.

Were those results due to smarts or luck? Luck may have had something to do with it -- after all, there are no guarantees. The fund managers promised only to invest in the best companies they could find, using strict standards of quality. However, finding those high-quality stocks took brains, not luck.

For my money, it's better to be smart than lucky.