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: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (53750)	9/28/2004 12:25:04 AM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

>>BTW yes I get your point but agian you seem to have one set of rules for one side and a different set for your side ....<< That is his way to win an argument, don't you know that?<g>

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (53750)	9/28/2004 12:47:02 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The "natives" argument is increasingly silly because the DNA mixing has been fairly steady and "natives" are not very often more than part-castes. Give it a bit more time and everyone will be natives, or first-nations, of everywhere. The issue is essentially a racist tribal one with "tribes" pretending that they have got some magical ring-fenced gene pool. They are as wrong as Hitler's master race ideas of racial purity. <... all the Natives here (Ohoh I mean first nations) want all their stuff back !> So they can give it back to the people they stole it from I suppose. We have Maoris here thinking their ancestors were conned out of land because they sold it at low prices and pretty soon it was being sold to others for many times what they sold it for. Of course, while Maoris owned it, it didn't have value, because the Europeans created the value by doing all the high-value European things. Now, Maoris want the land back at the new high-value prices, not at the old swamp-land prices. My rules are consistent. <Property rights in ye olde worlde were rights of conquest M you crack me up sometimes... ... And so what's really different from the new world ? > To reiterate, in the olde worlde, property just existed, it was found. "Hey look, a whole stack of gold. It's ours! And look, a whole herd of buffalo. Choice. And wow, an ocean full of fish. It's ours. A forest full of trees. Great. Finders keepers." Another tribe comes along and figures they are as entitled to it as the others, so say that they want it and the others can get out of the way. That's the rule of the jungle and how all biological entities have decided who gets what. That's the olde worlde of found wealth. The modern world is totally different. Irwin Jacobs and buddies think "Hmmm, we can do really cunning stuff with this software and ASICs and make phones which send signals flying through cyberspace. I bet people would pay a lot of money for that". So, they ask a bunch of shareholders to put up some hard-earned money to finance the development. Sure enough, it works and customers start buying the devices. It's all voluntary and there's no "found" wealth involved, unless the government gives the spectrum to their friends instead of selling to the highest bidder. The spectrum is a relatively small part of the total value being created. I'm sure you can understand the difference between found wealth and created wealth. Of course, even found wealth has a significant component of created wealth in it these days. One can't just fill a ship with oil. Some expensive holes need to be dug, though Saudi Arabia's holes are really cheap to dig. There isn't kilograms of gold just flopping around in a stream bed these days, waiting to be scooped up. There's serious mining to do at great cost. Mqurice