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: TimF who wrote (11095)	2/7/2006 1:17:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541599

It is assumed that the silver and the fish are of the same value when sold. If a different value is given to the two different employees you have a different hypothetical situation. This has been the problem with that analogy all along. The stated premise was that they payment in fish was equivalent to the payment in silver. That means that any liquidity differences have already been factored in. Yes, as you say, if the value is different, then we may have an equal opportunity problem if the workers weren't free to accept the contracts in fish vs. silver. Try as I may, I can't seem to find anything that would explain a charge of unfairness here. I simply cannot get my head around the notion that workers should be paid in perpetuity for a day's work unless, of course, they want to take their wages in installments. Likewise an investor. I haven't been offered any justification nor can I conjure one. Payment is delivered as required by the contract. In either case, when the contract is fulfilled, the contract ends.