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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (20281)	1/2/2012 7:36:18 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Wealth is the product of work. That's precisely wrong. It's like saying the heat of the box caused by the billiard balls bouncing around inside is determined by the final position of the balls at measurement. We all know that the heat is caused by the balls slamming into each other over time. The temperature is proportional to the average degree of deflection. A home, car or building may or may not represent wealth. If it is paid for and owned, it represents wealth. If the bank owns it, it really represents a liability as it was paid for with the promise of future work. The alienated view. Ownership can't be the object of action. Maybe you can explain why someone like Carl Icahn is absorbed in WS. Does he seek wealth or the action? To Icahn what he makes isn't wealth. It isn't even chips. He seeks the action exclusively. The billionaire oilman, H.L. Hunt, said, "ownership causes all the problems". The only wealth you have is the job you do each day. Those symbols are the things that wealth reflects off of You missed the symbolism. It went right over your head. Your interpretation doesn't fit the context. That indicates a failure to read carefully or to b e open to feel meaning. so we can see them. Envy of the OWS crowd. That's what Marx called "material alienation". Marx had a few things right which he expressed in his 1844 "Philosophical Communism", and this alienation concept was one of them. Then he started to live with Engels, and the worst side of him came out. He developed an OWS chip on his shoulder, probably arising from resentment towards Engel's inheritance. But those symbols also reflect future work, Utopianism. Someone else will be commanded to sacrifice to deliver utopia to you. Someone else will have to be enslaved to make the delivery. so until you know that little detail it can't be said whether it is wealth or not. This is the mystification that comes from those designing utopia who will enjoy someone else's money now while they're empowered by fools to presumably deliver the good life in the future, all a delusion. What they will deliver is chaos and anarchy.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (20281)	1/3/2012 3:11:07 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

. Wealth is the product of work. I tell people stories and they give me money. With that I buy food, shelter and stuff. My home is full of books, recorded music, some art, a bit of furniture, a few other odds and ends, and I have a car. I own a few stocks and have some money in the bank. That's it. So.... Mental experiment: Let's suppose my home burnt down, stuff's gone, government scoops my stocks and bank account, somebody steals my car. Have I lost my wealth? Nope. I can tell stories and folk give me money: I still have my capability. What I lost was a bunch of stuff Same thing for our host's example, Carl Icahn, or the Starbucks barrista, or a mechanic. Our wealth is our capabilities. A home, car or building may or may not represent wealth. If it is paid for and owned, it represents wealth. If the bank owns it, it really represents a liability as it was paid for with the promise of future work. Since we can make a representation or symbol of stuff, which is therefore metaphysical, it could be a lie, or misattribution - could be product of an ancestor's capability, or luck. The stuff itself is the product of capability found in the person, which is the real wealth. In a sense, wealth is like light, we can't see it unless it is reflected off of something. Those symbols are the things that wealth reflects off of so we can see them. I don't think so. We can see folks' wealth by looking at what they do - by looking at their capability. That's what the potlach was all about. A person gave away immense amounts of stuff - practically everything - as a demonstration of their capability, which was their real wealth. (Now I have nothing - watch!) But those symbols also reflect future work, so until you know that little detail it can't be said whether it is wealth or not. Wealth is a person's capability. Do they keep a promise? Do they act with honour? When I buy a house with mortgage I get title and lien the house to the bank as security for my promise to pay off the loan. But the bank never wants to own the house - they make the loan based on my real wealth - my capability both to pay and keep the promise. What I get from this: There are people with a lot of money and stuff who are not wealthy. There are people with no money and no stuff who are not wealthy. There are people with a lot of money and stuff who are wealthy. There are people with no money and no stuff who are wealthy. Most of us are in between. I suspect this woman is wealthy. Stumbled over the vid this AM ca.shine.yahoo.com