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.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22572)	12/7/2004 2:44:13 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

I wasn't discussing any of the issues you brought up, I was simply following down the path where Sun Tzu said the only true source of wealth for an individual is his "time." Naturally we can expand the meaning of time to metaphysical limits and beyond; by destroying the conventional definition we can have time (or "wealth") mean anything we want. My simple point is to inquire as to why in terms of conventional wealth ("net worth") someone like Gates, Buffett, Soros or even Tiger Woods is worth (in conventional, balance sheet terms) so much more than many other industrious, diligent souls. It's a joke to say that well, their "time" is worth so much more, as if the world were giving out hourly raises. In fact, as I noted many posts back, that's simply backformation or curve fitting. Soros is X years old and has Y millions of dollars, therefore his time MUST be worth more than Joe Smith. It's a useless way to look at things. More important would be to analyze how Buffet, say, or Michael Dell got to where they are. Is each truly a genius? Most don't think so. Is their time (in the sense of what they do with each minute) more valuable? Only if you curve fit. Do they work longer hours? Not than many I have known on Wall Street or in hospitals. Did they start with more capital, land, technology? No. So, what is the defining difference? Well, it's just my point of view, but it's how they gathered, managed and applied the information (a subset of which was and is technical applications, but that's far from "technology") that was available to all. Did they do this while spending time? Of course. They also did this while breathing, and while eating and evacuating their bowels on a regular basis. If an 80 year old billionaire could no longer evacuate his bowels, after 5 or 6 days you can bet he'd trade everything he owned just to cut loose. Many auto makers existed in the early 1900s. What made Ford different? Applied information. Kb

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22572)	12/7/2004 2:58:29 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed, my point was somewhat simpler and I am confused why it is proving hard to get across. The point is this: What is the source of everything that you have earned in your life? The only realistic answer is your time/life. Now the value of your time is a function of what you do with it (i.e. your skills or knowledge) as well as the supply and demand for you. But ultimately, you have always had only your life to trade for what you want. It should be obvious that in general, time can be converted into money more easily than the other way around. For example, given a choice between making the same money at half the time I work or making twice as much spending the current work, I'd always take the time; it can be converted into twice the money via a second job, but double the pay will not get me double the time. Sometimes it helps to look at hypothetical extremes. Consider a person who "owns" one year of America (so his net worth is ~GDP = $10T) and compare him with a person who has ~350M years of youth (i.e. he "owns" one year time of America). Who is the "richer" person? I think most of us would prefer to have the "time" than the money. HTH ST