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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (32110)	5/10/2005 4:48:13 PM
From: Oblomov	Respond to of 110194

No, I have no problem with Ellison buying a $75 MM house, and have no interest in imposing limits on property ownership. I have no problem with companies profiting; in fact I believe that the primary social obligation of any business is to make a profit. I do not think that the government is an inherently "good" counterbalance to the so-called "evil" predations of the rich. In fact, I think that the government administration apparatus is the usual hiding place for the venal who prefer to make excuses over doing the right thing. On the other hand, I believe that the state also wrongly helps big business at the expense of small business. In my view, the state should have no preference between large and small businesses, just as all citizens should be treated equally before the law. The rich should get no direct special preferences from the government, but should not be singled out for punishment (let alone purges, as you mentioned), either. Undoubtedly many people who are rich today got there by being the modern equivalent of a courtier (Ross Perot, Iacocca, etc). These rich are not blameworthy, for we the sovereign people put such a system in place. I would nonetheless be happy to see the chips fall where they may if the favor of big-corporate welfare were ended.