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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11453)	11/27/2001 6:13:41 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

There is already a lot of capital communally owned, such as all the expired patents, all the roadways built over hundreds of years, political systems providing stability and private ownership. The world is getting richer and richer faster and faster, not all the wealth being expressed in dollars. Good point. But this communal type of wealth does little to feed my heir's. For my heir's to be independent of the demand of others requires they master the management of private capital, not rely on community capital accumulated in the past. This is a relatively new skill, in terms of the past few centuries. If you accept that premise, it is then merely a matter of defining one's heirs as one's immediate family, one's tribe, one's nation, or humanity. The answer is not redistribution of production factors, but the education of newly minted citizens on how to accumulate and put to work savings in the form of capital. I especially liked this paragraph, from another recent post of yours: If we are guaranteed to live one million years, then a 1% return on investment would see us retired for nearly one million years if we deferred spending for only about the first 100 years. If we just spent all our money when getting it, we'd have to work the whole million years. Which would dishearten a lot of people. The longer the expected lifespan and the more secure the ownership of property, the lower the return on investment for which it makes sense to defer spending. This clearly shows something I understood, but did not understand entirely- the impact of time in the equation of required returns. This is something GenX/Y and those who follow would do well to 'Grok', or understand fully. I also agree that selling of services should be a viable part of the future- a means of exchange with society as a whole. I think your contribution of pixels to cyberspace is what we all may aspire to- a gift of service to others born not out of need, but also a gift that returns benefit to oneself/ourselves, though such a return is not explicitly expected.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11453)	11/27/2001 9:20:22 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<But that wealth can be destroyed in a short time if the mob gets envious of those who have and create more capital. There is no merit in 'sharing it around'. > Ooops... you've just put a 'no' in that last sentence that doesn't belong there!! It's all a matter of degrees no?? I mean that's exactly why you have to 'share it around' to some extent IMO. No way the world puts up with ever increasing disparity... luckily it looks like our society is "pretty good" at giving away large fortunes... our kids will perhaps see how it pans out. <I don't think that ownership of capital will be necessary for survival. People can sell their services and rent the assets they need [such as accommodation, cars, aircraft seats etc]. .> At the risk of contradicting my above [all depends on degrees I suppose] I agree with you here, at some point the folks who pick up the garbage will simply demand more money or turn to robbing you. DAK