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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (134574)	3/14/2001 5:29:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1589452

Not at all; however, I was taught by parents and teachers that being concerned with the common good is important The common good is important but so is freedom. Also IMO lower taxes helps the common good. Now that I am an adult to be able to focus on the needs of society as well as the self and try to satisfy both those needs to me is a sign of maturity. Giving of your own resources to help others is a sign of compassion and generosity but not really maturity (you can be very mature and still not be compassionate or generous). Would it be a sign of maturity, compassion or generosity if I looted your house and use the profits from this theft to feed poor children? If so would it still be a sign of these things if I used it to subsidize mohair production? Tim

To: tejek who wrote (134574)	3/15/2001 4:48:24 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1589452

Ted Re..Not at all; however, I was taught by parents and teachers that being concerned with the common good is important and that there is a delicate balance between that and self preservation. Now that I am an adult to be able to focus on the needs of society as well as the self and try to satisfy both those needs to me is a sign of maturity. <<<<<<<< It also is often one of the worst things you can do for the poor. Why? The poor need jobs, and aren't able on a small amount, able to invest it and create jobs. Even if the poor had the money, the poor lack the innate ability to invest wisely and make money off of their investments. Like the bible, you are better off teaching a man to fish, rather than give him a few fish. How do the rich get rich? By investing in equipment, creating jobs and having others make money for him. When you take money from the rich, you are destroying their ability to create jobs for the poor. Then at least, the poor will have a job, even if it is a low paying one. If you don't believe this, look at all of the countries which have confiscated the land and property from the rich and given it to the poor; and name me one country which has prospered because of it. Did Russia prosper? Did Iran prosper? Did Souh Africa or Mozembue, Cambodia,Viet Nam, Cuba. Capitalization works. You will have a social strata, but all stratas are better off, than if you had no rich at all. The rich get rich by investing their money and having others make money for them, and at least then, the poor have a job. I will give you an example. Lets say you give the 10,000 employees of Microsoft a vote on whether to take Bill Gates 60 billion dollars. The employees would get the money, but they would be out of a job, because you would have to sell microsoft to get the money. Would the employees take the money. My bet is that fewer than 5% would take the money, because the money only amounts to $6000 a piece, and their job is far more important than that. Not only that, but the country would be far worse off also. So get off of this notion that the rich only take from the poor. That is a marxist idea which has been disproven many times over.