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: TigerPaw who wrote (10660)	2/2/2006 4:55:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

Once again you (and thames-sider) are shoehorning the idea of wealth as gold or land. Wealth is not limited to gold or land. It can be anything that is valuable and tradable. If you could sell yourself in to indentured servitude than your future labor would be a tradable asset. Even though it is not tradable either your labor or your ability to labor depending on how you look at it is still an asset. You could try to imagine a dollar value for it based on your assume working time left and your salary/wage. But your past labor is not an asset. You don't have it anymore and neither does anyone else. If it produced goods than the goods may still be around and have a value but you probably don't own them, and even if you do the value of the good is based on the market supply and demand for the good not your labor. don't think it would be helpful to anyone to try and compensate time frivolously, that is why I think it should be compensated with a combination of immediate (salary) and long term capital which is precisely how the investment is compensated by immediate (dividends) and long term return of the principal. Return of principal is not compensation. Return ON principle is. That return could be dividends, interest payments, capital gains... It can have different forms. The law does not insist that it have both immediate/short term returns and long term returns. The people who make or take deposits or buy or sell securities either agree to the form and amount of compensation (including variable rates like in an adjustable rate loan, or the variable return from stocks and other securities). Why should the employer, or for that matter the employee, not have the same freedom? Your insistence on stock "decay" reduce the freedom of investors and of those who would make money by selling stock. Your insistence that the decay goes to the current employees reduces the freedom of both employers and employees. Its one thing for the law to allow for and recognize a security like what you would make of stock. Its quite another for the law to demand that all stocks now act as this new form of security and that all employees get compensated partially by company stock. Also you never did make it entirely clear. Would you apply this policy to non-public companies? Tim