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: Seeker of Truth who wrote (36256)	7/18/2003 8:20:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Malcolm, I find things go much better for me if I assume the most likely thing, which is that people are not altruists, that water runs downhill, that top of the food chain eats the lower, that laws of nature are not to be ignored because it's the death penalty, without appeal, if they are broken [they never are - step over a cliff and the law of nature does the rest]. Maybe my idea of what altruism means, and yours, are two different things, but what Jay and Ramsey write are not samples of altruism. People need to be careful with charitable allocation of money that they don't do more harm than good. I suppose the obvious answer is to leave it up to the recipient to decide whether it's good or not. But it's easy to tempt people with easy street, which might work in the short run but be very bad for them in the long run. Think of Pinnochio's friends being tempted by Pleasure Island. $ill Gates said it well - giving money away requires at least as much care as earning it. When people give money away, they are handing the power to get people to do things to somebody who might or might not misuse that power. Mq