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: Raymond Duray who wrote (14455)	2/4/2002 10:04:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<And then there's others like me, who ask 'when is enough, enough?' > That question means "When should I stop doing things which other people value?" I don't think anyone can ever have too much. But the big problem is what the heck to do with it. It sounds an easy and even silly question, but I've seriously wondered about it [not since solving the problem with a Tonka Truck full of Globalstar shares though]. I ended up with Philanthropic Investment meaning speculative investments which have a high risk of failure but which would be very valuable if successful. Another easy answer is to just give it to a government and leave it to the electorate to decide, which is considered the best solution by most people because they keep on voting for it and everyone claims to think democracy is great. But I don't like that answer because I think anyone good enough to earn heaps is probably more capable of doing something useful with it than politicians elected by people voting their personal interests. Simply starting a research facility on cancer could hinder a cancer cure because unless the right ideas are pursued, it would distract good researchers from lower-paying, but more likely successful investigations. Education of children is probably a good idea. Immunisation too [like $ill Gates is doing]. Political stability would be better still - such as a reconstituted UN into a federal system of states. One can never have too much if the aim is to do more than shove food in the front and buyer bigger and better cars, boats, planes, houses and masses of servants. More is better because it means more has been achieved for other people. A huge consumer surplus is a good thing. There can never be too much of it. More, more, more, Mqurice