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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (1619)	3/18/2001 3:24:20 PM
From: KailuaBoy	Respond to of 24758

Grace, It's interesting to me that whenever a group of people wants to take what another group of people have they start by coining a term that makes the others appear bad. It's usually short and then they begin attaching the negative connotations necessary for them to justify the theft. I listen to public radio a lot and there's a show every morning with a host who is pretty shameless in his lack of objectivity. Almost without exception, his topics are about someone getting away with something that will harm the people. Corporations = bad. Wealthy = bad. White = bad. Men = bad. You get the picture. Anyway for a couple years they would do segment after segment about the evils of "dotcommers". Everything from housing prices being to high for real people and what should be done about it to lack of representation of the right mix of minority groups in the valley. Apparently, even though companies were begging for anyone who could breathe, there were too many qualified H1B workers (mainly from India and Hong Kong) and not enough unqualified locals. That was not O.K. and they mulled over what needed to be done about it. It wasn't fare to exclude people who had no programming skills from programming jobs. The one that I remember most was a series on philanthropy and "dotcommers" and how they were giving money away but not in the traditional way. First, they weren't giving enough. I read that as being because most of them had made loads of virtual wealth (options vesting) in a couple of years and they were too busy to immediately give it away. The host and callers were all working very hard on finding ways to force these clearly greedy people to give their money to the ones who had none. Second, the money that was being given to philanthropic organizations wasn't going to in the traditional ways. These greedy "dotcommers" were investing in solving the root causes of the problems instead of giving to the ones experiencing the effects of the problem. That wasn't O.K. It was inhumane because the greedy ones were clearly indifferent to the plight of the disenfranchised. My point is this, they're no longer banging the drums for shaking down the newly wealthy. The market took care of that. Now they're chasing the unjust tax scheme that will give away the people's money to the richest of the rich. This new money grab from big business and the elite few is going to send us back to the days of "More porridge sir? Please may I have just a little more porridge?" I keep asking to be beamed up so that I can explain to the ones in the transporter room that they screwed up and I wasn't supposed to get off at this stop, but they're ignoring me. Damed gov'ment transportation workers. KB