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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (24080)	8/29/2001 12:36:26 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 29986

CB, that's funny. It wouldn't really take that long to read [if you don't move your lips and use your finger to point as you read]. You took a bit of time to respond anyway. You can stick to your story [which means you don't understand] and it's no skin off my nose if you live under misunderstandings. CB, I didn't come running over here for backup - I'd have thought you'd have noticed by now that I don't need backup but I always value expert commentary and provide it where possible. Thanks Mr Adrenaline and others who tried to help. You [again ... still] misunderstand my attitude to investment. Of course the driving mechanism is the production of profit. Without profit it is not investment. Without profit, any expense is wasteful. My point was that there is more to investment than simply making money. Irwin Jacobs is not in the business of CDMA for profit. I'm sure you can understand that. He is in CDMA for fun and for philanthropic reasons. Note that philanthropy is NOT charity, though many people confuse the two. Maximizing profit is part of philanthropy [though you will struggle with that concept]. $ill Gates is also not in it to earn a lot of money to pass on to his children - he has enough. But of course he wants to maximize profit. He uses the profits for charity and philanthropy. I did explain it, but again, you were on trasmit rather than receive. Nobody should lose money on companies they admire. That is wasteful. What those who can afford it can do is risk investing in high risk things which others would NOT invest in because there is a high risk. If they succeed, they make a lot of money and create huge value for people. If they fail, it is wasteful and regretful, but no great worry [because they knew there was a serious risk]. I'll stop now and hope your attention span of less than 40 seconds has not been exceeded. Breach of the code of intellectual honour? Huh? It all seemed very ethical and honorable to me. What was the problem? Serious breach of netiquette? C'mon! People here are very polite and welcoming. There is even a Ladies' Globalstar Philanthropy Club [Hello ladies.... anyone want to stick up for CB?] - using the word 'ladies' advisedly. Mqurice PS: Yes, I am retired [on my own earnings and investments].

To: Ilaine who wrote (24080)	8/29/2001 7:55:49 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29986

CB, on philanthropic investing. This is what it's about: columbia.edu <...Rosen Motors began the day Ben Rosen received a phone call from his brother, Dr. Harold Rosen, a world renowned scientist. Dr. Rosen was the inventor of the geostationary communications satellite and has over 50 patents to his credit. In Ben Rosen’s words, "Harold got the idea to change to world again." This idea focuses on the automobile and replacing the outdated internal combustion engine which has changed little in the last one hundred years. Dr. Rosen’s idea calls for a radical new design that combines a small turbine engine similar to those seen in airplanes with a flywheel that collects and stores energy for later use. In theory this engine will get 80 miles per gallon, have virtually zero emissions and go 0 to 60 mph in about 6 seconds. As Ben Rosen put it, "you can get from New York to Houston on one tank of gas." Their goal is to have a working prototype engine installed and running in a stock Mercedes by the end of 1997. At that point, Ben Rosen will have invested approximately $23 million of his estimated $100 million net worth into the venture. When asked why he was undertaking such an enormous project at a time when he could have retired in the most comfortable of ways, he replied that he wanted to make a difference by reducing emissions of pollutants worldwide. In his words, "we can be lean and green and build a better mousetrap." ... > I'm sure it was also a lot of fun. A challenge. He had a really big shed in which to work with all the best gadgets. Not for him a beer cooler in a Kiwi shed. asciimation.co.nz Message 16145734 It seems they have done their dough. That is a shame and a waste. It was a high risk investment with real technological possibilities. But it seems to have been all too hard. I believe that Rosen Motors has stopped operations. The turbine, regenerative braking and so on seem to have been for nought. Perhaps there will be residual technology and many engineers will have learned a lot and their research will flow on to other related ideas. Philanthropic investment is where self-actualizing people end up. The aim of humans is to climb Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Philanthropic investors are not out to buy a bigger SUV or pay off the mortgage. They have bigger fish to fry. You should not invest in those things unless you can afford it and have secured your children's development and your old age. Those lower on Maslow's list should stick with getting food and shelter. Those on top, with the ability and money, can take the risks. If they get it right, they'll get even richer and be able to fund the Next Big Thing. It's not intended as a way to lose money and waste human efforts. Globalstar, when conceived, was a philanthropic investment. By November 1999 it was a normal investment and anyone should have been able to make it succeed - all the hard part had been done [such as breaching the laws of physics to make CDMA work]. Mqurice