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: SG who wrote (45945)	1/28/2009 7:23:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220399

Haven't you? <We haven't evolved fast enough to put up brick walls ourselves and say "no" to our genetic heritage. > It seems easy enough. Figure out that eating sugar and doing other harmful things which your genetic heritage suggest are good things and don't do them. Some of us have a genetic endowment called "free will" which enables us to learn, think and choose. The public problem is depletion of the commons aka tragedy of the commons. If there's one fish left, you had better catch it because if you don't somebody else will. With uncontrolled spectrum people have to have the most powerful transmitter. Communism/collectivism don't work though socialists are thrilled with the alleged capitalist crisis, which is really a failure of government - mainly in the management of money - not capitalism. People are leaping to say "See, Alan Greenspan admits he was wrong", but they have no idea what he said he was wrong about. They mistakenly think he meant that capitalism was wrong. No it wasn't. All he was wrong on was the idea that shareholders and bond holders would prefer not to lose their money and would keep an eye on the level of risk their companies took. It's an understandable mistake and anyway, not an issue he should have tried to do anything about. If shareholders take little interest in what their company is doing, there's not much reason why governments should do so. There's a good case that the executives of companies were fraudulent in purporting to be working for the company when really they were taking on stupid risks which resulted in them getting big bonuses because of ephemeral and illusory profits. Shareholders were perhaps duped in a fraudulent way. Let the lawsuits begin. Mqurice