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 : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1362)	2/26/1999 12:13:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

PORC, I'm doing a better job of explaining my ideas than I thought. Your last post hit the nail on "my" head. >>But, I still don't buy that the answer is to limit future investment to past savings, any more than I believe that the solution to excessive use of credit cards is to make credit cards illegal.<< I'm not sure either. I am still trying to understand whether there is an increase in standard of living under fiat credit compared to if we only used savings. That's the key for me. The idea that the excess buildings, equipment etc.. are still there is not enough for me because they don't get used immediately. It may be that we just grow into their use over time and the excesses are generally not that big. I don't know if the Austrian's have that answer. Their view is that the avoidance of boom/bust is more important than some small loss in standard of living. It's ironic that their solution to a runaway boom is to let it bust, but the most important aspect of their philosophy is in designing a system that won't bust. >And, I still believe that the government must be the lender of last resort, just as it must be the granary of last resort, the retirement plan of last resort, the medical healer of last resort, etc.<< I agree as long as we have the system we have. But I suspect that we could design a system that would not need a lender of last resort nor the problems that causes. We might also be able to privatize the safety net in a way that we would get a better bang for the buck without the cheating and inefficiency etc... Maybe I can't design it, but when you think about it, all it is is an insurance policy. Some portion of each person's "premiums" would need to be used to cover those who can't pay the premiums for whatever reason so that everyone is in the insurance pool. If done in a competitive way, we would get more value.

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1362)	2/26/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

Porcupine, you're as sharp as your quills -g- BTW mike is fine. AS explains the problems best I don't worry about their solutions for the time being. there was a time long ago when our nations leaders fought against central banks. Thomas Jefferson said banks are more dangerous than any standing army. Mike