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 : PC Sector Round Table -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LK2 who wrote (473)	6/14/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: Gottfried	Respond to of 2025

Larry, new money (made by engaging in honest labor etc) is constantly coming into the stock market. So it is not a zero-sum game. The WS money manager is misusing the term. I've decided not to think about this too deeply, as I am not smart enough to come to a final conclusion on the matter. Just like I've given up on understanding the expanding universe.<G> GM

To: LK2 who wrote (473)	6/14/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: Frodo Baxter	Respond to of 2025

It's all relative. At the end of the season, the average baseball player's win-loss record is ALWAYS .500, regardless of how well certain players may do (zero-sum). But they all get paid for playing the game (not zero-sum).

To: LK2 who wrote (473)	6/15/1998 5:21:00 PM
From: Spots	Respond to of 2025

Some items to think about: IPOs. Corporate buybacks. Dividends. Bond/note/paper interest. Various other returns of capital to the market (e.g., Compaq just paid $30 cash plus stock for each share of DEC). Ultimately economic growth is returned as real value increases in the equities markets. The markets provide liquidity; the economy adds value (over inflation). Or takes it away, but in either case it is not a zero-sum proposition in the long term (everybody can lose in an economic contraction). In the short term, and in derivatives, etc, it approximates a zero sum game (you sell a call, I buy a call, eventually we both close the position, one wins, one loses). This i s probably the context in which Aronson was speaking; I expect he understands the broader context and was speaking loosely, or perhaps "narrowly" is a better term. Spots