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 : ZenWarrior's Trading Paradise -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimbaBear who wrote (358)	4/4/2001 5:45:08 PM
From: p40warhawk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2462

TimbaBear I guess you have stated it as well as it can be stated. Certainly I have never read many explanations that were better. However, I don't like the direction in which you are guiding me, correct though it may be. You have shown me in graphic terms why capitalism is vulnerable to moralistic attacks from leftists, socialists and communists and their sympathizers. Example: You say, "I have no loyalty to the source of employment of that capital that is not based on rate of return I receive. That is the key." Marx would love that. And I don't say that as a challenge to you. I think you are telling me the truth as you see it. And, no doubt, you speak for the vast majority of players in this "game". I DO feel a "loyalty to the source of employment of that capital". At least, I thought I was expressing that loyalty by putting my money to work with them. Not talking about blind loyalty like a fan of a sports team; but I mean the kind of loyalty that springs from a team approach to achievement in any endeavor. As an investor, I am part of that company's team (or so I thought). That loyalty would be terminated when I sold the stock. You ask, "In my opinion you are still mixing apples and oranges here. "Growth and appreciation of what?" The company or the invested capital? The company AND the investment capital, I thought. If the company grows and prospers, my investment capital should do likewise. I just don't see that that basic principle is changed just because an initial investment in the company can bought and sold over and over again. The only thing that is changed is the name of the investor. The "worth" of that investment is STILL tied to the performance of that company NO MATTER how many times the stock has been rebought and resold. I realize that I buy my stock not directly from the company, but from a market maker, a person who is OBLIGATED to buy or sell when I want to. Does a market maker really count as another "share holder" when he is filling a prescribed role as a facilitator? If there must be a seller for every buyer, why isn't buy/sell volume exactly 50/50 every day? You say, "I don't confuse "noble thoughts" with "employment of investment capital"." If by "noble thoughts" you mean "moral values", I have to disagree. I believe moral values should be associated with ALL that we do in our lives. Again, I think you have revealed a real vulnerable spot in the thoughts of many capitalists. There should be no conflict between "nobility" and "objectivity." We HAVE to correct that, or our system won't stand. Thanks for your patience with me. I always appreciate any opportunity to learn new things, or to learn more about old things. That should never stop in this life. Best, p40warhawk