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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (6952)	6/5/2006 2:27:25 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217783

How long is a piece of string, what is the definition of easy and what is the value of something? Okay, there is a fair bit of wriggle room in all those, so I suppose you are right that setting prices is NOT easy. In fact, it is impossible just as knowing the details of existence in the context of a single photon is apparently impossible, let alone all of them now and into the future. But "easy", "give or take a bit", would normally mean a fairly reasonable job of it could be done by reasonably talented people generally available for such a job. In the case of Globalstar, a base station would easily set the price by merely arranging a continuous auction for available minutes. Which would be a simple software programme. No supersonic intellect needed there. In the case of USD, just turn a certain number of them loose and go on permanent holiday. In an expanding economy, with increasing hordes of people, that would be deflationary. Lending would trend to zero when the risk of default on a loan exceeded the interest being paid and keeping the money under the mattress would be better than lending it to a bank or potentially deadbeat borrower. I suppose the central bank in that instance would notice interest rates bid for new money being loaned would trend towards zero. In which case they could spend a whole lot more money as a means of getting it into circulation. They could cut taxes by the amount that they increase the spending of new money, thereby keeping government's size constant. Which of course leads straight back to the electorate, which seem to be keen on increased government spending on themselves. Okay, I agree, leave easy out of it with the central bank version of currency. However, with the Qi, it is easy, because the holders of the currency would be the same people as those controlling it. In which case it could be left to them in a continuous auction whether to produce some more, or not. They would realize that devaluing the currency would not be in their interest [so to speak] and that maintenance of its credibility would be vital to their prosperity. So they would be careful with voting for dilution. More or less. Give or take a bit. Ignorance of the future notwithstanding. And other caveats. Which means, more or less, that you are right and that "easy" is probably an exaggeration. One couldn't get the price setting of the USD done by the average person in a supermarket queue, or jury room. Mqurice