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 (10994)	2/6/2006 6:24:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541559

What you are saying is that the worker can take any leftover paycheck and become a capitalist with it. That shows the inherent unfairness in the system. (I.e. the capitalist doesn't have to). If you have a stock owner and an employee and a good real estate investment becomes available the employee can put his paycheck in to it, the stockholder can sell his shares to invest. If the stockholder doesn't want to sell his shares but just wants to be invested in anything yes than he doesn't have to invest, because he has already made the investment. Nothing unfair about that. The money I have in my stock accounts is there because I invested it. I could invest more from my paycheck or I could sell my investments to have more current money to remodel my house or go on a vacation. The fact that the wealth is in one form (stock) for one person A another (cash) for person B, isn't unfair if the two can be quickly and easily exchanged for each other. Even in your fish or silver example, if silver is easily traded for fish than the two are equivalent except maybe the fish are a little harder to move around. If the cost or difficulty in making the trade is not significant than "doesn't have to" (re your "(I.e. the capitalist doesn't have to)") is of no significance. Tim