X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l7M84knd032692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:04:47 -0400 Received: from workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.132]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7M84LeW000465 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:04:24 -0400 Received: FROM mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.de [194.25.134.81]) BY workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46CBEDF2.EC643.29874 ; 22 Aug 2007 04:04:03 -0400 Received: from fwd35.aul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1INlC5-0002Mb-08; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:04:01 +0200 Received: from HUGOGO (VatFi6ZYreuq618yUaAJH00nu2MD756Ub7kHfZHdYW662nzUf8k5UR Æ [84.134.197.196]) by fwd35.t-online.de with esmtp id 1INlBl-2KR4iW0; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:03:41 +0200 Message-ID: <002f01c7e492$f2a7a660$0101a8c0 Æ HUGOGO> References: <93EC811F-946D-4EA2-ADE3-5D43B46EA65E Æ umich.edu> <4CE28F9E-2B6E-4834-B3FA-1C3FBF2E7341 Æ umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C7E4A3.B5C77B60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-ID: VatFi6ZYreuq618yUaAJH00nu2MD756Ub7kHfZHdYW662nzUf8k5UR X-TOI-MSGID: 717c940e-015b-4ec5-ae6c-65cec67d8bbb X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.1, clamav-milter version 0.91.1 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:03:38 +0200 To: "Daniel Reeves" , "Dave Morris" Cc: , , , From: "Franz Marschall" Subject: Re: mind the gap Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C7E4A3.B5C77B60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, I forgott to paste in my text. Dany, =20 You are absolutely right. The stock market is smarter as most people = think, and I explain it this way: The human brain is intelligent ( at least how we, who have this brain, = define intelligence) because billions of neurons act in this system, = where each neuron is counter connected to each other. If a system with = counter connected in depended agents becomes big enough, it develops = intelligence out of chaos. This exactly happens with the stock marked. =20 Day traders and hedge funds are very important to regulate the market = value of companies by pushing hidden assets ( or any potential, be it = material or immaterial) into daylight. It is immoral to hide assets and = not using it for the sake of the company =3D the sake of the economy =3D = the sake of the society. For example: There is a farmer who pretends or believes he was poor but = has valuable seeds in his barn that will rot away if it is not put out = on the field. In this case it is good to have a smart person who buys = the broken farm with the barn full of seeds and makes profit by putting = the seed out in the field. =20 Franz ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Daniel Reeves=20 To: Dave Morris=20 Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu ; steven Æ aptigi.com ; = reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu ; reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:44 AM Subject: Re: mind the gap Not only do I disagree with Dave, I'll go so far as to claim he = disagrees=20 with his own position. If not, Dave, why not make a killing shorting=20 stock of the next company to do a round of layoffs for the sake of a = short=20 term boost in stock price? The market is smarter than we think. Nor do I have a beef with day traders. Either they're providing = valuable=20 information to the market or they're going to get smacked hard. (In=20 expectation at least.) In any case, they're paying a fair rate for = the=20 money they borrow and no matter how little time they own a stock they = are,=20 in aggregate, contributing to the investment in those companies. (And=20 short-selling is just borrowing stock, later buying it to pay back the = loan, so nothing slimy about that, contrary to popular conception.) I used to be like Dave, pointing to a litany of "obvious" flaws in the = market (stock market or "the market" more generally, like microsoft = being=20 sucky (for me) yet rich). But the market had a habit of being smarter = than me and I've learned some humility in this regard. As for Dave's specific allegation (the stock market focuses on short = term=20 gains), I don't think that's true. The stock price estimates (the=20 per-share net present value of) the cumulative future cash flow of the = company. The stock market estimates that better than any other known=20 mechanism. It is of course prone to fits of hysteria but when it does = it's taking a very *long term* (fantasy) view. That said, there are cases where markets fail and that is in the face = of=20 externalities. A classic example of an externality is the Tragedy of = the=20 Commons in which a bunch of farmers ruin a common grazing field = because no=20 one person has incentive to ration their use of it if no one else is.=20 It's analogous to traffic congestion which is one of several reasons = we=20 need higher taxes (gas, roads) on driving. [1] The need to tax pollution is another classic example. Eugene's Starving Artist is an interesting example of a possible = market=20 failure. That might be explained in terms of externalities (positive = this=20 time) if the art was of a kind that couldn't be charged for by usage=20 (public sculpture perhaps). In other words, you have free-riders. Eugene's Down On Their Luck example I believe is an argument for risk=20 pooling, one form of which is the "social safety net", ie, welfare. = It=20 seems that participation should be optional though. Clare's Parasite CEO example I'm still thinking about... Danny [1] See: = http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-for-high-gas-pric= es/ and add to the list that cars are dangerous to cyclists and skaters! --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.20 15:21 (Yesterday) \/ --- > I'll rephrase my claim: > "Playing the stock market with the objective of short term gains = does not=20 > contribute to society, and in fact actively harms it." > But I do think that is true. The stock market has some benefits, and = there=20 > are good reasons to have such a thing around, but ours needs help. > > Stock prices can be a measurement of a companies performance, but it = can too=20 > easily be influenced in the short term for short term reasons. I = feel like it=20 > has become common for companies to trim benefits packages, switch = CEOs, cut=20 > R&D, and do other things which provide a benefit the company for one = quarter,=20 > and thus make the stock market evaluation bounce when their profits = look good=20 > for a moment, but which have serious long term costs. The CEOs in = charge, and=20 > the investors, like this strategy because they can profit from it, = then get=20 > out before the stock goes down again in the long run. > > > Many people lose from this- not only those holding the stocks when = the=20 > company goes down in general, but the employees of the company, and = those=20 > using the services of the company. The stock market encourages short = term=20 > thinking for short term gain and our country has become swept up in = this. I=20 > personally know people who have had their companies destroyed this = way. I=20 > feel like people invest not so much with an idea for building long = term=20 > stability and high probability of reasonable returns, but as more of = a get=20 > rich quick theme. And furthermore computer trading and other = features have=20 > made it easier to trade shorter and shorter term with little = understanding or=20 > analysis of the companies involved. So stock values become = influenced by more=20 > trivial surface things, because that's all these day traders have = time to=20 > see. So now companies are making trivial surface changes to satisfy = the whim=20 > of short term investors, at long term cost. > > There was a big discussion on NPR about hedge funds, stock market = trading of=20 > mortgages, and how it led to the creation of, and current bursting = of, the=20 > housing market bubble. Part of the problem was that stock market = investing=20 > had become too disassociated from the things being invested in and = the real=20 > long term values thereof. > > Meanwhile most people, who work for the companies thus traded, = suffer.=20 > Ironically it's their own investment in stock market based IRAs that = helps=20 > drive the process. > > So I would argue that the system needs to change. Not that we need = to get rid=20 > of the stock market entirely, but that we need to shift the way it = works to=20 > put the focus back on valuing companies that have good long term = strategies,=20 > and less on valuing get rich quick schemes. What if you had to own a = stock=20 > for at least a month before you could resell it? Or a week? Or a = year? I'm=20 > not sure where the right number would be, but it really seems to me = that=20 > traders who sign on in the morning, borrow $10M from a bank, trade = all day=20 > back and forth, return the $10M at the end of the day having made = $100k, they=20 > aren't really helping society, and could be actually harming it in = some real=20 > and significant ways. > > Of course part of this also is changing the attitudes of people and = whether=20 > they should be looking to get rich quick at any expense, or whether = they=20 > should be looking to help themselves, and incidentally also society, = in the=20 > long run. But from a top down approach at least we can put in = mechanisms that=20 > are designed to encourage the latter instead of the former. We can't = force=20 > anything, and I wouldn't want that level of government control, but = right now=20 > I feel like we strong encouragements to the opposite of what we = want. > > In the meantime I'll make sure that my company is never publicly = traded so I=20 > don't have to worry about it. :-) > > Dave > > > > > On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Kevin Lochner wrote: > >>=20 >> I have to take issue with Dave Morris re: "Playing the stock market = does=20 >> not contribute to society." >>=20 >> Not only does a company's stock price influence its access to = capital, but=20 >> the respective stock prices of all companies provide information = about the=20 >> state of the economy that a ceo or entrepeneur may use in making = strategic=20 >> corporate decisions. Stock prices are determined primarily by = people who=20 >> are "playing the stock market". >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Investing in new companies does. It's a fine line, but >>> I think we've gotten too much separation of rich and poor in our = society=20 >>> because of the way our stock market currently operates, and that = could use=20 >>> some correction. I agree that inheritance taxes are good as well, = to help=20 >>> prevent too many generations of people staying rich for free. But = we=20 >>> should try to reign in the various tricks which exist to leverage = large=20 >>> sums of cash into even larger sums via short term tricks in = business and=20 >>> stocks without actually contributing anything. Not only do they = take=20 >>> funds from people with less, they hurt the country overall. >>>=20 >>> But he is also correct- there's a wide variance of skill and = motivation in=20 >>> people, so there should be a wide variance in income levels. I'd = accept a=20 >>> factor of 100 variance from top to bottom in salary as a = reasonable=20 >>> maximum in relative value to society that a person could be. Some = people=20 >>> bust their asses continuously to help the world. Some people = actively try=20 >>> to live off of others without contributing anything. I do have = a=20 >>> problem with the factor of 1000 or 10000 variances that sometimes = occur,=20 >>> but those are obvious flaws that are difficult to correct. >>>=20 >>> Interesting to consider. :-) >>>=20 >>> Dave >>>=20 >>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote: >>>=20 >>>> We've been debating this essay >>>> http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html >>>> and I thought I'd move it to improvetheworld... >>>> I'll start: Graham is so right! The income gap between the rich = and the=20 >>>> poor is wonderful! >>>> Actually it started more as a debate about the nature of = capitalism and=20 >>>> interest ("why should money 'grow'?"). Here was the gist: >>>> * [the economy] is a zero-sum game, isn't it? >>>> - no >>>> * those earning money are taking it away, even if only = indirectly, from >>>> other people, no? >>>> - no, not if you think in terms of wealth (wealth =3D stuff you = want, >>>> money =3D way to transfer wealth) >>>> * Or am I totally simplifying the haves vs. the have-nots with my = pie >>>> metaphor? >>>> - yes, that's precisely the Daddy Model of Wealth! >>>> * Is it THEORETICALLY possible for no one to owe any money at all = in this >>>> world, i.e., that everyone just has money that "grows"? Or does = money >>>> only grow if it is taken away from others? >>>> - You're right, not possible, but for the opposite reason of what = you=20 >>>> seem >>>> to be suggesting. You grow money by giving it to someone = (lending it), >>>> not by taking it away. >>>> It even got a bit heated, along the lines of "Trixie, I don't = think it's=20 >>>> right for you to lash out against capitalistic/yootlicious ideas = without=20 >>>> grokking the answers to your questions [above]". >>>> Oh, and I offered a yootle to the first person who could answer = the=20 >>>> quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, with the = hint that=20 >>>> it has to do with human mortality. I believe that's the only = reason that=20 >>>> holds in all circumstances. >>>> In any case, Trixie wanted to resume the debate and this is = clearly the=20 >>>> place to do it! >>>> DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU REPLY (so it's easy for = those not=20 >>>> interested in this debate to delete the whole thread). >>>> Ok, go! >>>> Danny >>>> --=20 >>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel = Reeves" >>>> "Everything that can be invented has been invented." >>>> -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. >>>=20 >>> Dave Morris >>> cell: 734-476-8769 >>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/ >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > > Dave Morris > cell: 734-476-8769 > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/ > > --=20 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "Try identifying the problem and then solving it." -- suggestion from Dilbert's boss ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C7E4A3.B5C77B60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry, I=20 forgott to paste in my text.

 

Dany,

 

You are absolutely right. The stock = market is=20 smarter as most people think, and I explain it this = way:

The human brain is intelligent ( at = least how=20 we, who have this brain, define intelligence) because billions of = neurons act in=20 this system, where each neuron is counter connected to each other. If a = system=20 with counter connected in depended agents becomes big enough, it = develops=20 intelligence out of chaos. This exactly happens with the stock=20 marked.

 

Day traders and hedge funds are very = important=20 to regulate the market value of companies by  pushing hidden assets ( or any = potential,=20 be it material or immaterial) into daylight. It is immoral to hide = assets and=20 not using it for the sake of the company =3D the sake of the economy =3D = the sake of=20 the society.

For example: There is a farmer who = pretends or=20 believes he was poor but has valuable seeds in his barn that will rot = away if it=20 is not put out on the field. In this case it is good to have a smart = person who=20 buys the broken farm with the barn full of seeds and makes profit by = putting the=20 seed out in the field.

 

Franz

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Daniel = Reeves=20
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, = 2007 2:44=20 AM
Subject: Re: mind the gap

Not only do I disagree with Dave, I'll go so far as to = claim he=20 disagrees
with his own position.  If not, Dave, why not make = a=20 killing shorting
stock of the next company to do a round of = layoffs for=20 the sake of a short
term boost in stock price?  The market is = smarter=20 than we think.

Nor do I have a beef with day traders.  = Either=20 they're providing valuable
information to the market or they're = going to=20 get smacked hard.  (In
expectation at least.)  In any = case,=20 they're paying a fair rate for the
money they borrow and no matter = how=20 little time they own a stock they are,
in aggregate, contributing = to the=20 investment in those companies. (And
short-selling is just = borrowing stock,=20 later buying it to pay back the
loan, so nothing slimy about that, = contrary to popular conception.)

I used to be like Dave, = pointing to a=20 litany of "obvious" flaws in the
market (stock market or "the = market" more=20 generally, like microsoft being
sucky (for me) yet rich).  = But the=20 market had a habit of being smarter
than me and I've learned some = humility=20 in this regard.

As for Dave's specific allegation (the stock = market=20 focuses on short term
gains), I don't think that's true.  The = stock=20 price estimates (the
per-share net present value of) the = cumulative future=20 cash flow of the
company.  The stock market estimates that = better=20 than any other known
mechanism.  It is of course prone to = fits of=20 hysteria but when it does
it's taking a very *long term* (fantasy) = view.

That said, there are cases where markets fail and that is = in the=20 face of
externalities. A classic example of an externality is the = Tragedy=20 of the
Commons in which a bunch of farmers ruin a common grazing = field=20 because no
one person has incentive to ration their use of it if = no one=20 else is.
It's analogous to traffic congestion which is one of = several=20 reasons we
need higher taxes (gas, roads) on driving. = [1]

The need=20 to tax pollution is another classic example.

Eugene's Starving = Artist=20 is an interesting example of a possible market
failure.  That = might=20 be explained in terms of externalities (positive this
time) if the = art was=20 of a kind that couldn't be charged for by usage
(public sculpture=20 perhaps).  In other words, you have free-riders.

Eugene's = Down On=20 Their Luck example I believe is an argument for risk
pooling, one = form of=20 which is the "social safety net", ie, welfare.  It
seems that = participation should be optional though.

Clare's Parasite CEO = example=20 I'm still thinking about...

Danny

[1] See:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-for-= high-gas-prices/
 =20 and add to the list that cars are dangerous to cyclists and=20 skaters!


--- \/   FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.20 = 15:21=20 (Yesterday)   \/ ---

> I'll rephrase my = claim:
>=20 "Playing the stock market with the objective of short term gains does = not=20
> contribute to society, and in fact actively harms = it."
> But I=20 do think that is true. The stock market has some benefits, and there =
>=20 are good reasons to have such a thing around, but ours needs=20 help.
>
> Stock prices can be a measurement of a companies = performance, but it can too
> easily be influenced in the short = term=20 for short term reasons. I feel like it
> has become common for=20 companies to trim benefits packages, switch CEOs, cut
> = R&D, and do=20 other things which provide a benefit the company for one quarter, =
> and=20 thus make the stock market evaluation bounce when their profits look = good=20
> for a moment, but which have serious long term costs. The = CEOs in=20 charge, and
> the investors, like this strategy because they = can profit=20 from it, then get
> out before the stock goes down again in the = long=20 run.
>
>
> Many people lose from this- not only = those=20 holding the stocks when the
> company goes down in general, but = the=20 employees of the company, and those
> using the services of the = company. The stock market encourages short term
> thinking for = short=20 term gain and our country has become swept up in this. I
> = personally=20 know people who have had their companies destroyed this way. I =
> feel=20 like people invest not so much with an idea for building long term =
>=20 stability and high probability of reasonable returns, but as more of a = get=20
> rich quick theme. And furthermore computer trading and other = features=20 have
> made it easier to trade shorter and shorter term with = little=20 understanding or
> analysis of the companies involved. So stock = values=20 become influenced by more
> trivial surface things, because = that's all=20 these day traders have time to
> see. So now companies are = making=20 trivial surface changes to satisfy the whim
> of short term = investors,=20 at long term cost.
>
> There was a big discussion on NPR = about=20 hedge funds, stock market trading of
> mortgages, and how it = led to the=20 creation of, and current bursting of, the
> housing market = bubble. Part=20 of the problem was that stock market investing
> had become too = disassociated from the things being invested in and the real
> = long=20 term values thereof.
>
> Meanwhile most people, who work = for the=20 companies thus traded, suffer.
> Ironically it's their own = investment=20 in stock market based IRAs that helps
> drive the=20 process.
>
> So I would argue that the system needs to = change. Not=20 that we need to get rid
> of the stock market entirely, but = that we=20 need to shift the way it works to
> put the focus back on = valuing=20 companies that have good long term strategies,
> and less on = valuing=20 get rich quick schemes. What if you had to own a stock
> for at = least a=20 month before you could resell it? Or a week? Or a year? I'm
> = not sure=20 where the right number would be, but it really seems to me that =
>=20 traders who sign on in the morning, borrow $10M from a bank, trade all = day=20
> back and forth, return the $10M at the end of the day having = made=20 $100k, they
> aren't really helping society, and could be = actually=20 harming it in some real
> and significant ways.
>
> = Of=20 course part of this also is changing the attitudes of people and = whether=20
> they should be looking to get rich quick at any expense, or = whether=20 they
> should be looking to help themselves, and incidentally = also=20 society, in the
> long run. But from a top down approach at = least we=20 can put in mechanisms that
> are designed to encourage the = latter=20 instead of the former. We can't force
> anything, and I = wouldn't want=20 that level of government control, but right now
> I feel like = we strong=20 encouragements to the opposite of what we want.
>
> In the = meantime I'll make sure that my company is never publicly traded so I =
>=20 don't have to worry about it. :-)
>
>=20 Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:29 = PM,=20 Kevin Lochner wrote:
>
>>
>> I have to take = issue=20 with Dave Morris re: "Playing the stock market does
>> not=20 contribute to society."
>>
>> Not only does a = company's=20 stock price influence its access to capital, but
>> the = respective=20 stock prices of all companies provide information about the =
>> state=20 of the economy that a ceo or entrepeneur may use in making strategic=20
>> corporate decisions.  Stock prices are determined = primarily=20 by people who
>> are "playing the stock market".
>> =
>>
>>
>> Investing in new companies = does. It's a=20 fine line, but
>>> I think we've gotten too much = separation of=20 rich and poor in our society
>>> because of the way our = stock=20 market currently operates, and that could use
>>> some=20 correction.  I agree that inheritance taxes are good as well, to = help=20
>>> prevent too many generations of people staying rich = for=20 free.  But we
>>> should try to reign in the various = tricks=20 which exist to leverage large
>>> sums of cash into even = larger=20 sums via short term tricks in business and
>>> stocks = without=20 actually contributing anything.   Not only do they take=20
>>> funds from people with less, they hurt the country=20 overall.
>>>
>>> But he is also correct- = there's a=20 wide variance of skill and motivation in
>>> people, so = there=20 should be a wide variance in income levels. I'd accept a =
>>>=20 factor of 100 variance from top to bottom in salary as a reasonable=20
>>> maximum in relative value to society that a person = could be.=20 Some people
>>> bust their asses continuously to help the = world.=20 Some people actively try
>>> to live off of others = without=20 contributing anything.    I do have a
>>> = problem=20 with the factor of 1000 or 10000 variances that sometimes occur,=20
>>> but those are obvious flaws that are difficult to=20 correct.
>>>
>>> Interesting to consider.=20 :-)
>>>
>>> Dave
>>> =
>>> On=20 Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> We've been debating this = essay
>>>> http://www.paulgraham.com/gap= .html
>>>>=20 and I thought I'd move it to improvetheworld...
>>>> = I'll=20 start:  Graham is so right!  The income gap between the rich = and the=20
>>>> poor is wonderful!
>>>> Actually = it=20 started more as a debate about the nature of capitalism and=20
>>>> interest ("why should money 'grow'?").  Here = was the=20 gist:
>>>> * [the economy] is a zero-sum game, isn't=20 it?
>>>> - no
>>>> * those earning money = are=20 taking it away, even if only indirectly, from
>>>> = other=20 people, no?
>>>> - no, not if you think in terms of = wealth=20 (wealth =3D stuff you want,
>>>> money =3D way to = transfer=20 wealth)
>>>> * Or am I totally simplifying the haves = vs. the=20 have-nots with my pie
>>>> = metaphor?
>>>> - yes,=20 that's precisely the Daddy Model of Wealth!
>>>> * Is = it=20 THEORETICALLY possible for no one to owe any money at all in=20 this
>>>> world, i.e., that everyone just has money = that=20 "grows"? Or does money
>>>> only grow if it is taken = away from=20 others?
>>>> - You're right, not possible, but for the = opposite=20 reason of what you
>>>> seem
>>>> to be = suggesting.  You grow money by giving it to someone (lending=20 it),
>>>> not by taking it away.
>>>> It = even=20 got a bit heated, along the lines of "Trixie, I don't think it's=20
>>>> right for you to lash out against=20 capitalistic/yootlicious ideas without
>>>> grokking = the=20 answers to your questions [above]".
>>>> Oh, and I = offered a=20 yootle to the first person who could answer the
>>>>=20 quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, with the hint = that=20
>>>> it has to do with human mortality.  I = believe that's=20 the only reason that
>>>> holds in all=20 circumstances.
>>>> In any case, Trixie wanted to = resume the=20 debate and this is clearly the
>>>> place to do=20 it!
>>>> DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU REPLY = (so it's=20 easy for those not
>>>> interested in this debate to = delete=20 the whole thread).
>>>> Ok, go!
>>>>=20 Danny
>>>> --
>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu= /people/dreeves =20 - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>>> "Everything = that can be=20 invented has been invented."
>>>>  -- Charles H. = Duell,=20 Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
>>> =
>>>=20 Dave Morris
>>> cell: 734-476-8769
>>> http://www-personal.umich= .edu/~thecat/
>>>=20
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Dave=20 Morris
> cell: 734-476-8769
> http://www-personal.umich= .edu/~thecat/
>
>

--=20
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu= /people/dreeves =20 - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Try identifying the problem = and=20 then solving it."
   -- suggestion from Dilbert's=20 boss

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C7E4A3.B5C77B60--