Newmont Mining(NEM) & Newmont Gold(NGC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Newmont Mining(NEM) & Newmont Gold(NGC)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: ahhaha who wrote (427)	12/15/2000 12:14:42 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) of 587

I just heard Alice Rivlin give her take on the economy. She made a lot of accurate statements about what's happening materially. Then she reverted to her school of demand management orientation and made a claim that at the root of economic failure. She said that lowering interest rates which in her view stimulates economic activity is better than lowering taxes. She said it is more direct and provides stimulus of investment rather than stimulus of consumption. She has it exactly wrong. She's prejudiced because she starts with the Democrat assumption that wealth is bad. Your wealth, that is, not hers. With that assumption firmly in place on a solid foundation of fairness she can reach any conclusion as long as it doesn't cut taxes. After all, she reasons, it's just a giveaway to the rich. It should be to no one's surprise that 'Bugs agree. Without knowing a thing about economics 'Bugs rightly sense that cutting taxes improves economic integrity and that undermines the sturm und drang that helps to propel the price of gold upward. They also sense that driving down interest rates in a belated attempt to prop a slowing economy will stimulate prices more than it will stimulate output. Rivlin's assumption is built on a denial of the superiority of the return on higher risk. The building is centered on the idea that capital should be borrowed rather contributed. In her class on macroeconomics there is no risk capital. There is no validity to entrepreneurial capitalism. There is no value in contributions to individuals trying to create new products under great risk. What she teaches is that established firms borrow to finance R&D. Contributions of any kind are just a giveaway to the rich, the wrong rich. Isn't it the case that the purpose for borrowing is to finance inventories of existing products? Is there any borrowing that isn't inherently for this purpose? No matter how you cut it you come back to the inescapable conclusion that borrowing only imitates, it doesn't create anything new. The reason is simple. It's too risky to borrow to invent because it is unlikely you will be successful. That's the only true and constructive purpose for earnings. Earnings should be thrown away on risk taking ventures hoping to find one that will lead to a mighty increase in revenues. That's also the only purpose for savings. Thus savings should be thrown away to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Rivlin's prejudice will never let her reach that difficult conclusion. Academic intellect is small indeed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next