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.

Technology Stocks : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Coolwire who wrote (2842)	10/21/1997 12:40:00 AM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

Jarrett, I think Schumpeter called the process "creative destruction". In any case, quality of life in both the US and Canada has never been better: be it health, wealth, access to education, leisure time available, access to adequate supplies of nutritious food, etc. People live longer, are generally healthier and have more leisure time with which to enjoy their increased wealth. In the last century, 9 out of 10 members of the workforce worked on the farms growing food. Yes, technology displaced some of those workers and will continue to do so, possibly until the end of time. But the displaced workers, once reintegrated into the new work force, tend to be better off. Personally, I wouldn't choose to live in any previous era nor in some other geographic area. ... though Tahiti, Bali or Fiji may very well be worth serious exploration. But even those become desirable only with the wealth that has been created by a capitalist regime. I further believe that providing welfare incents exactly the wrong behaviours. The lower tiers, which have become dependent upon various welfare systems, would in many cases be much better off if the existing systems did not exist. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to this issue. I would start first in the family, second in the community, and lastly the various levels of government to help those who truly need a hand up. I further believe that the ultimate answer lies within the education system - the skills, knowledge and experience that is imparted to each member of society. Welfare disables people, education could enable them. My 2 cents worth. Ian.

To: Coolwire who wrote (2842)	10/21/1997 2:59:00 AM
From: geoffrey Wren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10921

Jarrett: Marxism is not an alternative to capitalism, it is just a different system for allocating capital (the five year plan was how they allocated capital in Russia I believe). Either way, someone inevitably decides what factories to build, what products to produce. There is less concentration of capital in what is called capitalism (where equipment and resources for production are controlled as private property) than in Marxism, where capital is controlled by one government. The relative concentration of capital in individuals does not matter that much. Bill Gates cannot consume his capital; he is just custodian of it until he or his wife dies (at which time one-half of what does not go to charity will go the Treasury as Estate tax (wonder if governmental forecasts of budget balance consider poor Bill's life expectancy)). And the other half, well, that too will be held as custodian by his kids, and if the kids or grand-kids are poor custodians, it will be dissipated to the con artists of the world (all types; they work in all strata of society, and with varying degrees of respectability, constantly working to unconcentrate wealth). Would agree that the family that fails to accumulate capital is at a severe disadvantage. We tend to talk in America of personal capital (M.D. degree, for instance), but in reality investment in high-priced education is arguably a poor investment. Take a kid through Harvard undergraduate and Johns Hopkins medical school at full tuition, invest the money instead, take into consideration foregone income for seven years of schooling, consider the lower tax rates on capital gains than on income, and you have to wonder if it is a solid financial investment. At any rate, I think for the middle class of 25-50 years hence, the relative value of job earnings in comparison to capital net worth will decrease. In many lives now the difference between comfort and strain is family money. This will become more pronounced in the future, as more and more of our high income jobs will be subjected to foreign competition and efficiency measures (such as union busting). The family that inherits a respectable sum (say $200,000) and invests it wisely in these times of high returns will have all the advantage over the family that gets no inheritance. So the concentration of capital is not worrisome to me, and the accumulation of capital is a good thing (especially for those in the middle class). As to the Darwinian side effects of capitalism, they are generally worse in a desultory system than in a vibrant system where there is more money washing around. And one cannot consider in abstract the benefits of a less efficient system, such as one where union members made a good wage, without considering the drawbacks, such as the rampant racism in unions that excluded blacks from holding those good jobs. Anyway, these side effects of more efficient capitalism cannot be so bad if so many immigrants still want to come to this highly capitalist country. If there is need to help the poor we should do it in a more straightforward way than paying governmental workers twice what their non-governmental counter-parts make and having policies with other such distortions. Increase the threshold for paying income taxes and social security taxes, perhaps. Just MO. Geoff Wren

To: Coolwire who wrote (2842)	10/21/1997 11:14:00 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

Jarrett, I've lived in a Marxist country (East Germany) and would say give me capitalism any time, warts and all. Imagine the government deciding what all the tech companies should produce! GM

To: Coolwire who wrote (2842)	10/21/1997 2:04:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 10921

Jarret: Ya I read the whole two big tomes he wrote, and once when asked to summarize Marxist philosophy, while my interlocutor stood on one foot, I summarized is as follows: "You'll never get rich from your own work". (or in todays Jargon, "it is the value added, stupid, the value added".) By the way, what Marx did not conceive of is the "security blanket" or the welfare capitalism. Apart of that he was quite prescient. Ya, his solutions (means of production being owned by the proletariat) stinks, and we are getting there anyhow. Zeev

To: Coolwire who wrote (2842)	10/21/1997 2:17:00 PM
From: John Cuthbertson	Respond to of 10921

Off Topic: Marxist Economics >Marx believe that the fundamental divide in any society is between the people who own the machinery and the factories and the people whose only marketable assets is their capacity for work ("the proletarians"). The trend towards making yet bigger winners continues. In 1978 the typical chief executive at a big company earned about 60 times what the typical worker earned; in 1995 he took home about 160 times as much.< The big salaries these executives are paid, however, are not for the most part a return on their ownership of assets.* They are in fact being paid for their "capacity for work" for the corporation. This does not support the thesis of the divide between asset owners and workers, in fact it tends to contradict it. The trend referred to only represents a widening of the differential in what "the market" is willing to pay for different kinds of work. (*This remains true even if a lot of the pay comes throught the granting of stock options or similar incentives.)