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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (166100)	6/10/2002 8:58:38 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, RE: I know you prefer no gov't intervention. But the capital markets have already tried this. They threw billions of dollars trying to solve this problem, and that resulted in a waste of money that exceeds the S&L disaster. The people that lost those billions lost the money willingly. They took a risk and lost. The existence of downside risk is one of the reasons our system works. The gov't needs to step in and assure only a limited number of companies, to attract investors. Nothing will move until this happens, regardless of how we may dislike government intervention. If the government tries to enforce a solution, the only difference from the above scenario is that the people that would be losing the money didn't willingly invest the money. If a project doesn't make financial sense, it doesn't make it a smart project all of a sudden if you change the investor. There are a lot of smart people is this country. Somewhere, sometime, somebody will come up with a solution. And until that happens, undoubtedly a lot of people will lose money on false solutions. Without that lost money, the rich reward for the true winner wouldn't be possible. And if the government tries to force through a less than ideal solution, there is the added cost that people will be less willing to take on a project that might truly solve the problem.