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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7999)	12/24/2005 1:46:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

Your approach - not to draw any lines, caters to the worst elements of human emoton - excessive greed. Baloney. Excess wealth enables people to deal with problems that would otherwise go unattended, that the collective somehow hasn't found in it's heart the motivation to deal with. Like AIDS in Africa, for example, a recent example. One of the rewards of acquiring more money than one needs is getting to decide what to do with it. Mine is headed for ecosystem preservation. You want to deny people the rewards of their efforts and you're willing to reduce the gross level of effort because it is primitive to be "greedy." Have you ever lived in a commune? Talk about trips back to the dark ages...

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (7999)	12/27/2005 4:12:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

But, at a certain point the ability to obtain more material wealth becomes meaningless In a modern complex society if that level exists its very high. And achieving greater wealth is not just for personal consumption but for security of your offspring, for donating to charity or political causes, for starting up new businesses that develop new products and employee more people. Also even if someone is just using the wealth for personal consumption I think the result of allowing that personal consumption is much better then the result of forbidding it. Forbidding it or limiting it does reduce the incentive to produce and to take risks at least for some, and if the restrictions are strong for many. Even if this wasn't the case I would have a hard time justifying the limits. You talk about "where we draw the line". I respond by asking; what right do "we" have to "draw the line"? Tim