Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Davies who wrote (13773)	8/8/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

All that labor getting supplanted by machinery didn't stop the situation from going all to hell in the past. Now there is no Japan to expose the world's competitive emperor's new clothes. Tous les monde sont francais. What defines wealth? Someone wealthy 50 years ago was proud of the pile of junk they owned. That's relative to what we now consider to be junk. Someone poor now was wealthy relative to the distant past. Millionaires are dime a dozen. The rich resent the easy way slobs become wealthy by merely having been sitting in a garage where something new happened to be invented. It is the rich who will elect to make becoming rich substantially more expensive and difficult in order to differentiate their wealth from all the hoi-polloi from relegating their greatness to the trash heap. You put these things in terms of material output of junk when they are issues of human ego. What is the point of owning a Maserati? I know, you like the feel of acceleration. I have tried to emphasize it isn't that kind of zero sum. That's why the poor now are rich relative to the distant past. The world's wealth grows over time, but none of these issues deal with that fact. The Soviet Union was wealthier in 1970 than it was in 1960. The infrastructure had been extended and improved, but the economic position of individual Russians was no better. The zero sum concept comes from socialist egalitarians who believe that wealth should be redistributed. It is assumed that such action is desirable, since then no one suffers. The outcome is everyone suffers more from such formulae. It is an entire myth of slob society that the rich live better than the poor. You can't even begin to comprehend this until you're rich. Then, the last thing you can admit to yourself is the bitter truth of it. For, what then is the point of life? Dread comes from evading the answer to that question. When you're poor or average you have somewhere to go, but when you have dough you can only go down or try not to go anywhere. Yes, it's that bad. So when you see all these people cheering because they hit the lottery or become vested, know that their misery is only starting. You have said I am naive about people. You may come to retract that statement. It is an obvious observation that the middle class is hell-bent to get rich, so I guess I should have confidence in them that they will try to make whatever they want happen. Somehow you doubt that. Now, who is naive?