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 (20303)	1/3/2012 11:53:28 AM
From: dvdw©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

1. You said Let's change your mental experiment a little. Scenario #1 - you are dropped into the middle of the amazonian jungle with a few things that you acquired through the telling of your stories. You have a gun, bullets, a backpack, rain gear, food, gold coins, jewelry, canoe & paddle and a bunch of t-shirts. Scenario #2 - you are dropped into the middle of the amazonian jungle with your capability to tell stories. neither scenario guarantees any probability of a subjects survival...over the other...effective story tellers innovate by adding value to the knowledge of the listener, while guns bullets gold will always be looted.......provide cause for envy and fear, in Franks case, i'd bet his survival probability with his stories.is as good or better....over his probable survival skills with the items provided 2. You said "If that were true, then they wouldn't retain title of the house. Your capabilities and promise would be enough. The quality of your capabilities and promise will dictate the amount of risk the bank is willing to take, but your "wealth", by your definition, isn't enough for the bank to hand over the title." And yet, experience over the last decades suggests that is exactly what they did, handed over titles, to others who multiplied the title into products that were sold to others, in many cases no clear title is available today....because the contract between buyer seller lender has been extrapolated beyond the loans originator into the no mans land of derivative finance..

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (20303)	1/3/2012 4:03:34 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 24758

Let's change your mental experiment a little. Hell, no! Here and now is what matters. Outside of the fact that there is already a definition for the word "wealth", Definition of wealth as we normally see it is ambiguous if not outright misleading, your definition of wealth only works within the narrow confines of your culture at this specific time. So what? Everybody's idea of wealth whether conventional, or like that of me or our host's, is local. Sounds to me like we need a new word, not a new definition of an old word. The word's fine what's needed is descriptions, not definition. I appears folk don't like description – too much blood and guts and not enough abstractions. If that were true, then they wouldn't retain title of the house. Your capabilities and promise would be enough. The quality of your capabilities and promise will dictate the amount of risk the bank is willing to take, but your "wealth", by your definition, isn't enough for the bank to hand over the title. What?! The bank doesn't have title. I do. I buy the house, and the bank lends me money to do so. It has to have a lien against it in case I die or become disabled and can't pay. This isn't NINJA country – the bank makes the loan because the banker thinks I'm capable of paying and will keep my promise. We are immensely more wealthy in my sense of the word than in previous times of much fewer opportunities when slavery, or near to it, was a real threat. Folk had to indenture themselves, and sometimes their children, as security for loans. Still goes on in some places where what people do is clearly their wealth.