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 : How To Write Covered Calls - An Ongoing Real Case Study! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Wright who wrote (10607)	5/1/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: Clever Nick Name	Respond to of 14162

As one engineer to another, I think you are extending thermodynamics way beyond the very narrow field it was intended to describe. Entropy always increases, but try to explain babies using only the laws of thermodynamics. Converting clay to pottery, iron and coal to steel and bits of sand to computers, fibre optics and eventually a world wide communication network are rather dramatic examples of decreasing entropy and increasing wealth. People just plain violate thermodynamic principles. As for the market being a zero sum game, this is certainly true; But you must account for inflows and outflows of money. The massive inflow of fresh capital is the major reason for the current boom in market valuations. Never forget that money is just a symbol. The cost of printing $1 bills is the same as a $1 million dollar bill. What the money is worth is a function of the wealth generated by the economy versus the fresh symbols printed by the government.

To: David Wright who wrote (10607)	5/2/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14162

Wealth is certainly created. Wealth is created by progress, invention, innovation, and, ultimately, efficiency. As we become more efficient, we are able to meet our basic needs by working fewer hours, and able to afford more luxuries. A visitor from the last century would probably be astonded by the luxury that the average American lives in today. Is this not the creation of wealth?

To: David Wright who wrote (10607)	5/2/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: James F. Hopkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14162

David ; Here is an old qoute I like, There is no real wealth but the labor of man. Were the mountains of gold and the valleys of silver, the world would not be one grain of corn the richer; nor one comfort would be added to the human race. :Percy Bysshe Shelly (1792 - 1822, English writer ) While the above is simple it contains the basic premise about wealth. Mans invention, innovation, and efficiency all require labor in one form or another, however Money in and of itself does not create wealth but facilitates the exchange of it. If I stretch it I could say money is to wealth like "freon" is to a refrigeration system, and if it didn't or don't circulate then we would or will resort to some sort of barter system to exchange wealth. If the money system is efficient it can move wealth created from labor ( energy ), from one location to another and facilitate a synergy which allows for a more efficient labor force, however not all money systems do this and at some point they can be counter productive to wealth. Where that point is changes from time to time and is dependent on the infrastructure of what ever system it works within , which is the point of many arguments all of which take away from the "net" that could be achieved if there were no arguments about the exchange system. Planing , if over done , can waste more energy than just doing the job at hand in a more crude fashion , an asmebly line may make for more efficient production if there is a considerable amount of widgets to be produced but again creating an effective system is a waste if you only need one or two widgets. None of this changes the premise that all real wealth comes from the Labor of man. ---------------- While I'm at it the market is often refereed to as a zero sum game however it's less than that, while people tend to look at an exchange as having two sides buy/sell they over look the cost the over head of the market requires more willing buyers than sellers Just to stay even let the buyers/sellers just match and the stock market will sink of it's weight. For stocks to move up in value or even stay the same it always takes "NEW" or more willing investors to exceed the amount of sellers. So in that respect it does not create the growth as much as it depends on it , if growth of the infrastructure is good it can enhance it, but let something happen where growth goes natural then the stock market becomes a liability at times leading to the destruction of more wealth than it helped enhance. In more recent history all the wars can be traced to an argument about the system used to exchange wealth. If our system were near as efficient as the pundits make it out to be there would be no national debt, which at this time exceeds the so called market value of all the stock market put together, ( excluding bonds which can't be counted as assets to the system as they them self are form of debt based on future expectations ) Most of the so called wealth we have today is just in the eyes of the beholders , but it's really borrowed from tomorrow with the expectation that the next generation will be better off and more able to pay the interest than we are. ------------------ Let so much as 5% of investors in the stock market try to get their money out of it at any one time and the Ponzi effect will show it's true colors. Jim have the