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: <marschall &AElig solartekt.de>
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 l7MFTDnd026015 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:29:14 -0400
Received: from dave.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.131]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7MFSkse026667 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:28:51 -0400
Received: FROM mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.de [194.25.134.18]) 	BY dave.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46CC5621.68215.29038 ;  	22 Aug 2007 11:28:34 -0400
Received: from fwd33.aul.t-online.de  	by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp  	id 1INrq9-0008Gz-01; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:09:49 +0200
Received: from HUGOGO (S+v9OqZHreIEq5pDCzsM3DCZyv1XkBj1GwwmtTNEWqoTPRzezBTb6G &AElig [84.134.197.196]) by fwd33.t-online.de 	with esmtp id 1INrpt-0UXnpA0; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:09:33 +0200
Message-ID: <005101c7e4ce$70712e50$0101a8c0 &AElig HUGOGO>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708200401310.19265 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> <93EC811F-946D-4EA2-ADE3-5D43B46EA65E &AElig umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708201324300.31118 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu> <4CE28F9E-2B6E-4834-B3FA-1C3FBF2E7341 &AElig umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708210236400.19265 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> <002f01c7e492$f2a7a660$0101a8c0 &AElig HUGOGO> <2ff07e720708220642n3f4d54f6tf6b5589600113fc4 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004E_01C7E4DF.338EB960"
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: S+v9OqZHreIEq5pDCzsM3DCZyv1XkBj1GwwmtTNEWqoTPRzezBTb6G
X-TOI-MSGID: 656f9d51-840c-4162-a88d-60839a1d7b2c
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 17:09:29 +0200
To: "Clare Dibble" <clare.dibble &AElig gmail.com>
Cc: "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, "Dave Morris" <thecat &AElig umich.edu>,         <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>, <steven &AElig aptigi.com>,         <reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu>, <reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu>
From: "Franz Marschall" <marschall &AElig solartekt.de>
Subject: Clare, Re: mind the gap

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C7E4DF.338EB960
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Clare,

=20

Your comment is right. Note: Communism also means, that due to =
improvements of technology, there are so much goods produced, that there =
is enough for every body. Industrialization and boosting efficiency was =
a main task of the communist regimes. But they didn't understand  that =
free (chaotic) markets work much better then planned economies. As a =
matter of fact, the bigger an economy is, the more intelligent, =
(efficient, innovative) it becomes if the rules are free and the less =
productive it becomes if you try to plan the whole beast.

=20

Your comments concerning groups or classes are right as well. The free =
market can only work in a peaceful society. This is why civilized and =
healthy economies impose a moderate tax on profits and provide a decent =
standard of living for every citizen. I know, this "standard" is not =
quite fair in the US. But it could be fair, if the taxes wouldn't been =
spent for military expenses.

=20

Franz

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Clare Dibble=20
  To: Franz Marschall=20
  Cc: Daniel Reeves ; Dave Morris ; improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu ; =
steven &AElig aptigi.com ; reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu ; reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu=20
  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:42 PM
  Subject: Re: mind the gap


  I can buy Franz's notion of "intelligence" rising out of chaos, but
  think that there are limits to how humans can understand their
  interaction with such systems.

  There are three problems:
  1.  In these systems, especially as you tend toward big systems like
  the stock market, the sum is not equal to its parts.  One day trader's
  prediction is likely to be bunk, the idea Franz advocates is that
  thousands of day traders somehow (intelligence arises out of chaos)
  correctly identify value.
  2.  Because we are limited, we try to understand the pieces to
  understand the whole.  Franz himself gives an example of one dude to
  represent the wisdom of many.
  3.  One thing our brains like to do is divide people into teams... us
  and them, red and blue, black and white, White Sox vs. Cardinals.
  It's part of my theory of why sports is so naturally attractive to the
  masses.  The question is how much of a perceived difference is
  required before teams divide, and how big is a good size for that team
  to be.

  The thing that is funny to me is that a bunch of pro-free market
  people sound almost communist when talking about the good of the many
  that arises through markets.  But we don't evaluate "good" by whether
  or not it is good for many (though we argue it that way in public).
  We argue based on whether or not it is good for _us_, and then assume
  or estimate how many others are like us.  How "like" others have to be
  has to do with when we divide into teams or, as people in other
  countries would say, "class".

  So, if we are the farmer, who's family farm is broken apart and seeds
  sold to some corporation, how good or bad the market is depends on
  what else he can do.  If he moves into town, gets a car and a washing
  machine, and a factory job that is much easier than plowing the fields
  is, he thinks the market is good at finding value and readjusting
  things.  But if he then starves, he thinks the market is bad.
  Likewise, if the guy who bought the farm makes lots of money, good; if
  not, bad.  "Good for society" is too big for any one of us to
  understand personally (we can do aggregate measures, though, which
  give us some idea so we might think we understand), much less predict,
  and our perception is largely based on how good something is for our
  local node in the network.

  The middle class disappearing to a group of haves and have lesses
  (there are not so many true have-nots in the US) is not so great in a
  society that allows bunches of credit and informs people they need to
  desire things outside of their class.  Middle class was a good
  solution to this problem because you could live in a little
  neighborhood and have tupperware parties and keep up with the Jones
  one step at a time.  Little raises meant you could get the next best
  thing that was 10% more expensive than the last thing and
  incrementally you can get build something quite nice in a lifetime.

  Making "reality" tv an almost constant lifestyles of the rich and
  famous and making it seem like you personally should have that kind of
  luxury (mostly defined by brand, as Graham pointed out), then
  hallowing out the salaries on which you buy it is the precursor to a
  surf class.  This has never worked out well in the past (for the
  enslaved), and I have no reason to think that the disappearance of
  1400 square foot houses into a sea of mansions and across town, a very
  different sea of apartments and trailers will work out well this time
  either.  This missing rung on the ladder of economic development is a
  path to a stronger division instead of pulling more people into this
  productive group.  The problem is the thought process and behavior of
  the groups of people who do not feel utilized and productive.


  On 8/22/07, Franz Marschall <marschall &AElig solartekt.de> wrote:
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Sorry, I forgott to paste in my text.
  >
  >
  >
  > Dany,
  >
  >
  >
  > 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.
  >
  >
  >
  > 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.
  >
  >
  >
  > Franz
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Daniel Reeves
  > To: Dave Morris
  > Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu ; steven &AElig aptigi.com ; =
reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu ;
  > reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
  > 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
  > with his own position.  If not, Dave, why not make a killing =
shorting
  > stock of the next company to do a round of layoffs for the sake of a =
short
  > 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
  > information to the market or they're going to get smacked hard.  (In
  > expectation at least.)  In any case, they're paying a fair rate for =
the
  > money they borrow and no matter how little time they own a stock =
they are,
  > in aggregate, contributing to the investment in those companies. =
(And
  > 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
  > 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
  > gains), I don't think that's true.  The stock price estimates (the
  > per-share net present value of) the cumulative future cash flow of =
the
  > company.  The stock market estimates that better than any other =
known
  > 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
  > externalities. A classic example of an externality is the Tragedy of =
the
  > Commons in which a bunch of farmers ruin a common grazing field =
because no
  > one person has incentive to ration their use of it if no one else =
is.
  > It's analogous to traffic congestion which is one of several reasons =
we
  > 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
  > failure.  That might be explained in terms of externalities =
(positive this
  > time) if the art was of a kind that couldn't be charged for by usage
  > (public sculpture perhaps).  In other words, you have free-riders.
  >
  > Eugene's Down On Their Luck example I believe is an argument for =
risk
  > pooling, one form of which is the "social safety net", ie, welfare.  =
It
  > 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
  > > contribute to society, and in fact actively harms it."
  > > But I do think that is true. The stock market has some benefits, =
and there
  > > 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
  > > easily be influenced in the short term for short term reasons. I =
feel like
  > it
  > > has become common for companies to trim benefits packages, switch =
CEOs,
  > cut
  > > R&D, and do other things which provide a benefit the company for =
one
  > quarter,
  > > and thus make the stock market evaluation bounce when their =
profits look
  > good
  > > for a moment, but which have serious long term costs. The CEOs in =
charge,
  > and
  > > the investors, like this strategy because they can profit from it, =
then
  > get
  > > out before the stock goes down again in the long run.
  > >
  > >
  > > Many people lose from this- not only those holding the stocks when =
the
  > > company goes down in general, but the employees of the company, =
and those
  > > using the services of the company. The stock market encourages =
short term
  > > thinking for short term gain and our country has become swept up =
in this.
  > I
  > > personally know people who have had their companies destroyed this =
way. I
  > > feel like people invest not so much with an idea for building long =
term
  > > stability and high probability of reasonable returns, but as more =
of a get
  > > rich quick theme. And furthermore computer trading and other =
features have
  > > made it easier to trade shorter and shorter term with little =
understanding
  > or
  > > analysis of the companies involved. So stock values become =
influenced by
  > more
  > > trivial surface things, because that's all these day traders have =
time to
  > > see. So now companies are making trivial surface changes to =
satisfy the
  > whim
  > > of short term investors, at long term cost.
  > >
  > > There was a big discussion on NPR about hedge funds, stock market =
trading
  > of
  > > mortgages, and how it led to the creation of, and current bursting =
of, the
  > > housing market bubble. Part of the problem was that stock market =
investing
  > > had become too disassociated from the things being invested in and =
the
  > real
  > > long term values thereof.
  > >
  > > Meanwhile most people, who work for the companies thus traded, =
suffer.
  > > Ironically it's their own investment in stock market based IRAs =
that helps
  > > drive the process.
  > >
  > > So I would argue that the system needs to change. Not that we need =
to get
  > rid
  > > of the stock market entirely, but that we need to shift the way it =
works
  > to
  > > put the focus back on valuing companies that have good long term
  > strategies,
  > > and less on valuing get rich quick schemes. What if you had to own =
a stock
  > > for at least a month before you could resell it? Or a week? Or a =
year? I'm
  > > not sure where the right number would be, but it really seems to =
me that
  > > traders who sign on in the morning, borrow $10M from a bank, trade =
all day
  > > back and forth, return the $10M at the end of the day having made =
$100k,
  > they
  > > aren't really helping society, and could be actually harming it in =
some
  > real
  > > and significant ways.
  > >
  > > Of course part of this also is changing the attitudes of people =
and
  > whether
  > > they should be looking to get rich quick at any expense, or =
whether they
  > > should be looking to help themselves, and incidentally also =
society, in
  > the
  > > long run. But from a top down approach at least we can put in =
mechanisms
  > that
  > > are designed to encourage the latter instead of the former. We =
can't force
  > > anything, and I wouldn't want that level of government control, =
but right
  > now
  > > 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
  > > don't have to worry about it. :-)
  > >
  > > Dave
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Kevin Lochner wrote:
  > >
  > >>
  > >> I have to take issue with Dave Morris re: "Playing the stock =
market does
  > >> not contribute to society."
  > >>
  > >> Not only does a company's stock price influence its access to =
capital,
  > but
  > >> the respective stock prices of all companies provide information =
about
  > the
  > >> state of the economy that a ceo or entrepeneur may use in making
  > strategic
  > >> corporate decisions.  Stock prices are determined primarily by =
people who
  > >> are "playing the stock market".
  > >>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >> 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
  > >>> because of the way our stock market currently operates, and that =
could
  > use
  > >>> some correction.  I agree that inheritance taxes are good as =
well, to
  > help
  > >>> prevent too many generations of people staying rich for free.  =
But we
  > >>> should try to reign in the various tricks which exist to =
leverage large
  > >>> sums of cash into even larger sums via short term tricks in =
business and
  > >>> stocks without actually contributing anything.   Not only do =
they take
  > >>> funds from people with less, they hurt the country overall.
  > >>>
  > >>> But he is also correct- there's a wide variance of skill and =
motivation
  > in
  > >>> people, so there should be a wide variance in income levels. I'd =
accept
  > a
  > >>> factor of 100 variance from top to bottom in salary as a =
reasonable
  > >>> maximum in relative value to society that a person could be. =
Some people
  > >>> bust their asses continuously to help the world. Some people =
actively
  > try
  > >>> to live off of others without contributing anything.    I do =
have a
  > >>> problem with the factor of 1000 or 10000 variances that =
sometimes occur,
  > >>> but those are obvious flaws that are difficult to correct.
  > >>>
  > >>> Interesting to consider. :-)
  > >>>
  > >>> Dave
  > >>>
  > >>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
  > >>>
  > >>>> 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
  > >>>> poor is wonderful!
  > >>>> Actually it started more as a debate about the nature of =
capitalism and
  > >>>> 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
  > >>>> 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
  > >>>> right for you to lash out against capitalistic/yootlicious =
ideas
  > without
  > >>>> grokking the answers to your questions [above]".
  > >>>> Oh, and I offered a yootle to the first person who could answer =
the
  > >>>> quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, with the =
hint that
  > >>>> it has to do with human mortality.  I believe that's the only =
reason
  > that
  > >>>> holds in all circumstances.
  > >>>> In any case, Trixie wanted to resume the debate and this is =
clearly the
  > >>>> place to do it!
  > >>>> DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU REPLY (so it's easy for =
those
  > not
  > >>>> interested in this debate to delete the whole thread).
  > >>>> Ok, go!
  > >>>> Danny
  > >>>> --
  > >>>> 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.
  > >>>
  > >>> Dave Morris
  > >>> cell: 734-476-8769
  > >>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
  > >>>
  > >>>
  > >>
  > >>
  > >
  > > Dave Morris
  > > cell: 734-476-8769
  > > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
  > >
  > >
  >
  > --
  > 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_004E_01C7E4DF.338EB960
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
size=3D3>Clare,</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><?xml:namespace =
prefix =3D o ns =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><FONT size=3D3><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman">Your=20
comment is right. Note: Communism also means, that due to improvements =
of=20
technology, there are so much goods produced, that there is enough for =
every=20
body. Industrialization and boosting efficiency was a main task of the =
communist=20
regimes. But&nbsp;they didn=92t understand <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>that free (chaotic) markets =
work much=20
better then planned economies. As a matter of fact, the bigger an =
economy is,=20
the more intelligent, (efficient, innovative) it becomes if the rules =
are free=20
and the less productive it becomes if you try to plan the whole=20
beast.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><o:p><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB style=3D"mso-ansi-language: =
EN-GB">Your=20
comments concerning groups or classes are right as well. The free market =
can=20
only work in a peaceful society. This is why civilized and healthy =
economies=20
impose a moderate tax on profits and provide a decent standard of living =
for=20
every citizen. I know, this =93standard=94 is not quite fair in the=20
</SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix =3D st1 ns =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20
/><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"mso-ansi-language: =
EN-GB">US</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">. But it could be fair, =
if the taxes=20
wouldn=92t been spent for military =
expenses.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><o:p><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New =
Roman">Franz<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=3Dclare.dibble &AElig gmail.com =
href=3D"mailto:clare.dibble &AElig gmail.com">Clare=20
  Dibble</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dmarschall &AElig solartekt.de=20
  href=3D"mailto:marschall &AElig solartekt.de">Franz Marschall</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A =
title=3Ddreeves &AElig umich.edu=20
  href=3D"mailto:dreeves &AElig umich.edu">Daniel Reeves</A> ; <A =
title=3Dthecat &AElig umich.edu=20
  href=3D"mailto:thecat &AElig umich.edu">Dave Morris</A> ; <A=20
  title=3Dimprovetheworld &AElig umich.edu=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu">improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu</A> =
; <A=20
  title=3Dsteven &AElig aptigi.com =
href=3D"mailto:steven &AElig aptigi.com">steven &AElig aptigi.com</A>=20
  ; <A title=3Dreeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu=20
  href=3D"mailto:reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu">reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu</A> ; <A =

  title=3Dreeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu=20
  href=3D"mailto:reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu">reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 22, =
2007 3:42=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: mind the gap</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>I can buy Franz's notion of "intelligence" rising out =
of chaos,=20
  but<BR>think that there are limits to how humans can understand=20
  their<BR>interaction with such systems.<BR><BR>There are three=20
  problems:<BR>1.&nbsp; In these systems, especially as you tend toward =
big=20
  systems like<BR>the stock market, the sum is not equal to its =
parts.&nbsp; One=20
  day trader's<BR>prediction is likely to be bunk, the idea Franz =
advocates is=20
  that<BR>thousands of day traders somehow (intelligence arises out of=20
  chaos)<BR>correctly identify value.<BR>2.&nbsp; Because we are =
limited, we try=20
  to understand the pieces to<BR>understand the whole.&nbsp; Franz =
himself gives=20
  an example of one dude to<BR>represent the wisdom of many.<BR>3.&nbsp; =
One=20
  thing our brains like to do is divide people into teams... us<BR>and =
them, red=20
  and blue, black and white, White Sox vs. Cardinals.<BR>It's part of my =
theory=20
  of why sports is so naturally attractive to the<BR>masses.&nbsp; The =
question=20
  is how much of a perceived difference is<BR>required before teams =
divide, and=20
  how big is a good size for that team<BR>to be.<BR><BR>The thing that =
is funny=20
  to me is that a bunch of pro-free market<BR>people sound almost =
communist when=20
  talking about the good of the many<BR>that arises through =
markets.&nbsp; But=20
  we don't evaluate "good" by whether<BR>or not it is good for many =
(though we=20
  argue it that way in public).<BR>We argue based on whether or not it =
is good=20
  for _us_, and then assume<BR>or estimate how many others are like =
us.&nbsp;=20
  How "like" others have to be<BR>has to do with when we divide into =
teams or,=20
  as people in other<BR>countries would say, "class".<BR><BR>So, if we =
are the=20
  farmer, who's family farm is broken apart and seeds<BR>sold to some=20
  corporation, how good or bad the market is depends on<BR>what else he =
can=20
  do.&nbsp; If he moves into town, gets a car and a washing<BR>machine, =
and a=20
  factory job that is much easier than plowing the fields<BR>is, he =
thinks the=20
  market is good at finding value and readjusting<BR>things.&nbsp; But =
if he=20
  then starves, he thinks the market is bad.<BR>Likewise, if the guy who =
bought=20
  the farm makes lots of money, good; if<BR>not, bad.&nbsp; "Good for =
society"=20
  is too big for any one of us to<BR>understand personally (we can do =
aggregate=20
  measures, though, which<BR>give us some idea so we might think we =
understand),=20
  much less predict,<BR>and our perception is largely based on how good=20
  something is for our<BR>local node in the network.<BR><BR>The middle =
class=20
  disappearing to a group of haves and have lesses<BR>(there are not so =
many=20
  true have-nots in the US) is not so great in a<BR>society that allows =
bunches=20
  of credit and informs people they need to<BR>desire things outside of =
their=20
  class.&nbsp; Middle class was a good<BR>solution to this problem =
because you=20
  could live in a little<BR>neighborhood and have tupperware parties and =
keep up=20
  with the Jones<BR>one step at a time.&nbsp; Little raises meant you =
could get=20
  the next best<BR>thing that was 10% more expensive than the last thing =

  and<BR>incrementally you can get build something quite nice in a=20
  lifetime.<BR><BR>Making "reality" tv an almost constant lifestyles of =
the rich=20
  and<BR>famous and making it seem like you personally should have that =
kind=20
  of<BR>luxury (mostly defined by brand, as Graham pointed out),=20
  then<BR>hallowing out the salaries on which you buy it is the =
precursor to=20
  a<BR>surf class.&nbsp; This has never worked out well in the past (for =

  the<BR>enslaved), and I have no reason to think that the disappearance =

  of<BR>1400 square foot houses into a sea of mansions and across town, =
a=20
  very<BR>different sea of apartments and trailers will work out well =
this=20
  time<BR>either.&nbsp; This missing rung on the ladder of economic =
development=20
  is a<BR>path to a stronger division instead of pulling more people =
into=20
  this<BR>productive group.&nbsp; The problem is the thought process and =

  behavior of<BR>the groups of people who do not feel utilized and=20
  productive.<BR><BR><BR>On 8/22/07, Franz Marschall &lt;<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:marschall &AElig solartekt.de">marschall &AElig solartekt.de</A>&gt;=20
  wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Sorry, I forgott to =
paste in my=20
  text.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; =
Dany,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
  You are absolutely right. The stock market is smarter as most people=20
  think,<BR>&gt; and I explain it this way:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; The human =
brain is=20
  intelligent ( at least how we, who have this brain,<BR>&gt; define=20
  intelligence) because billions of neurons act in this system, =
where<BR>&gt;=20
  each neuron is counter connected to each other. If a system with=20
  counter<BR>&gt; connected in depended agents becomes big enough, it =
develops=20
  intelligence<BR>&gt; out of chaos. This exactly happens with the stock =

  marked.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Day traders and hedge funds =
are very=20
  important to regulate the market value<BR>&gt; of companies by&nbsp; =
pushing=20
  hidden assets ( or any potential, be it material or<BR>&gt; =
immaterial) into=20
  daylight. It is immoral to hide assets and not using it for<BR>&gt; =
the sake=20
  of the company =3D the sake of the economy =3D the sake of the=20
  society.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; For example: There is a farmer who pretends =
or=20
  believes he was poor but has<BR>&gt; valuable seeds in his barn that =
will rot=20
  away if it is not put out on the<BR>&gt; field. In this case it is =
good to=20
  have a smart person who buys the broken<BR>&gt; farm with the barn =
full of=20
  seeds and makes profit by putting the seed out in<BR>&gt; the=20
  field.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Franz<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; =
-----=20
  Original Message -----<BR>&gt; From: Daniel Reeves<BR>&gt; To: Dave=20
  Morris<BR>&gt; Cc: <A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu">improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu</A> =
; <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:steven &AElig aptigi.com">steven &AElig aptigi.com</A> ; <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu">reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu</A> =
;<BR>&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu">reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu</A><BR>=
&gt;=20
  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:44 AM<BR>&gt; Subject: Re: mind the =

  gap<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Not only do I disagree with Dave, I'll go so far =
as to=20
  claim he disagrees<BR>&gt; with his own position.&nbsp; If not, Dave, =
why not=20
  make a killing shorting<BR>&gt; stock of the next company to do a =
round of=20
  layoffs for the sake of a short<BR>&gt; term boost in stock =
price?&nbsp; The=20
  market is smarter than we think.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Nor do I have a beef =
with day=20
  traders.&nbsp; Either they're providing valuable<BR>&gt; information =
to the=20
  market or they're going to get smacked hard.&nbsp; (In<BR>&gt; =
expectation at=20
  least.)&nbsp; In any case, they're paying a fair rate for the<BR>&gt; =
money=20
  they borrow and no matter how little time they own a stock they =
are,<BR>&gt;=20
  in aggregate, contributing to the investment in those companies. =
(And<BR>&gt;=20
  short-selling is just borrowing stock, later buying it to pay back =
the<BR>&gt;=20
  loan, so nothing slimy about that, contrary to popular=20
  conception.)<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I used to be like Dave, pointing to a =
litany of=20
  "obvious" flaws in the<BR>&gt; market (stock market or "the market" =
more=20
  generally, like microsoft being<BR>&gt; sucky (for me) yet =
rich).&nbsp; But=20
  the market had a habit of being smarter<BR>&gt; than me and I've =
learned some=20
  humility in this regard.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; As for Dave's specific =
allegation=20
  (the stock market focuses on short term<BR>&gt; gains), I don't think =
that's=20
  true.&nbsp; The stock price estimates (the<BR>&gt; per-share net =
present value=20
  of) the cumulative future cash flow of the<BR>&gt; company.&nbsp; The =
stock=20
  market estimates that better than any other known<BR>&gt; =
mechanism.&nbsp; It=20
  is of course prone to fits of hysteria but when it does<BR>&gt; it's =
taking a=20
  very *long term* (fantasy) view.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; That said, there are =
cases=20
  where markets fail and that is in the face of<BR>&gt; externalities. A =
classic=20
  example of an externality is the Tragedy of the<BR>&gt; Commons in =
which a=20
  bunch of farmers ruin a common grazing field because no<BR>&gt; one =
person has=20
  incentive to ration their use of it if no one else is.<BR>&gt; It's =
analogous=20
  to traffic congestion which is one of several reasons we<BR>&gt; need =
higher=20
  taxes (gas, roads) on driving. [1]<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; The need to tax =
pollution=20
  is another classic example.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Eugene's Starving Artist =
is an=20
  interesting example of a possible market<BR>&gt; failure.&nbsp; That =
might be=20
  explained in terms of externalities (positive this<BR>&gt; time) if =
the art=20
  was of a kind that couldn't be charged for by usage<BR>&gt; (public =
sculpture=20
  perhaps).&nbsp; In other words, you have free-riders.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; =
Eugene's=20
  Down On Their Luck example I believe is an argument for risk<BR>&gt; =
pooling,=20
  one form of which is the "social safety net", ie, welfare.&nbsp; =
It<BR>&gt;=20
  seems that participation should be optional though.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; =
Clare's=20
  Parasite CEO example I'm still thinking about...<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
  Danny<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; [1] See:<BR>&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-for-high-=
gas-prices/">http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-for-=
high-gas-prices/</A><BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  and add to the list that cars are dangerous to cyclists and=20
  skaters!<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; --- \/&nbsp;&nbsp; FROM Dave Morris =
AT=20
  07.08.20 15:21 (Yesterday)&nbsp;&nbsp; \/ ---<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; =
I'll=20
  rephrase my claim:<BR>&gt; &gt; "Playing the stock market with the =
objective=20
  of short term gains does not<BR>&gt; &gt; contribute to society, and =
in fact=20
  actively harms it."<BR>&gt; &gt; But I do think that is true. The =
stock market=20
  has some benefits, and there<BR>&gt; &gt; are good reasons to have =
such a=20
  thing around, but ours needs help.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Stock =
prices can=20
  be a measurement of a companies performance, but it can<BR>&gt; =
too<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; easily be influenced in the short term for short term reasons. I =
feel=20
  like<BR>&gt; it<BR>&gt; &gt; has become common for companies to trim =
benefits=20
  packages, switch CEOs,<BR>&gt; cut<BR>&gt; &gt; R&amp;D, and do other =
things=20
  which provide a benefit the company for one<BR>&gt; quarter,<BR>&gt; =
&gt; and=20
  thus make the stock market evaluation bounce when their profits =
look<BR>&gt;=20
  good<BR>&gt; &gt; for a moment, but which have serious long term =
costs. The=20
  CEOs in charge,<BR>&gt; and<BR>&gt; &gt; the investors, like this =
strategy=20
  because they can profit from it, then<BR>&gt; get<BR>&gt; &gt; out =
before the=20
  stock goes down again in the long run.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; =
&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;=20
  Many people lose from this- not only those holding the stocks when =
the<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; company goes down in general, but the employees of the company, =
and=20
  those<BR>&gt; &gt; using the services of the company. The stock market =

  encourages short term<BR>&gt; &gt; thinking for short term gain and =
our=20
  country has become swept up in this.<BR>&gt; I<BR>&gt; &gt; personally =
know=20
  people who have had their companies destroyed this way. I<BR>&gt; &gt; =
feel=20
  like people invest not so much with an idea for building long =
term<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; stability and high probability of reasonable returns, but as more =
of a=20
  get<BR>&gt; &gt; rich quick theme. And furthermore computer trading =
and other=20
  features have<BR>&gt; &gt; made it easier to trade shorter and shorter =
term=20
  with little understanding<BR>&gt; or<BR>&gt; &gt; analysis of the =
companies=20
  involved. So stock values become influenced by<BR>&gt; more<BR>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  trivial surface things, because that's all these day traders have time =

  to<BR>&gt; &gt; see. So now companies are making trivial surface =
changes to=20
  satisfy the<BR>&gt; whim<BR>&gt; &gt; of short term investors, at long =
term=20
  cost.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; There was a big discussion on NPR =
about hedge=20
  funds, stock market trading<BR>&gt; of<BR>&gt; &gt; mortgages, and how =
it led=20
  to the creation of, and current bursting of, the<BR>&gt; &gt; housing =
market=20
  bubble. Part of the problem was that stock market investing<BR>&gt; =
&gt; had=20
  become too disassociated from the things being invested in and =
the<BR>&gt;=20
  real<BR>&gt; &gt; long term values thereof.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;=20
  Meanwhile most people, who work for the companies thus traded, =
suffer.<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; Ironically it's their own investment in stock market based IRAs =
that=20
  helps<BR>&gt; &gt; drive the process.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; So I =
would=20
  argue that the system needs to change. Not that we need to get<BR>&gt; =

  rid<BR>&gt; &gt; of the stock market entirely, but that we need to =
shift the=20
  way it works<BR>&gt; to<BR>&gt; &gt; put the focus back on valuing =
companies=20
  that have good long term<BR>&gt; strategies,<BR>&gt; &gt; and less on =
valuing=20
  get rich quick schemes. What if you had to own a stock<BR>&gt; &gt; =
for at=20
  least a month before you could resell it? Or a week? Or a year? =
I'm<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; not sure where the right number would be, but it really seems to =
me=20
  that<BR>&gt; &gt; traders who sign on in the morning, borrow $10M from =
a bank,=20
  trade all day<BR>&gt; &gt; back and forth, return the $10M at the end =
of the=20
  day having made $100k,<BR>&gt; they<BR>&gt; &gt; aren't really helping =

  society, and could be actually harming it in some<BR>&gt; real<BR>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  and significant ways.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Of course part of this =
also is=20
  changing the attitudes of people and<BR>&gt; whether<BR>&gt; &gt; they =
should=20
  be looking to get rich quick at any expense, or whether they<BR>&gt; =
&gt;=20
  should be looking to help themselves, and incidentally also society,=20
  in<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; &gt; long run. But from a top down approach at =
least we=20
  can put in mechanisms<BR>&gt; that<BR>&gt; &gt; are designed to =
encourage the=20
  latter instead of the former. We can't force<BR>&gt; &gt; anything, =
and I=20
  wouldn't want that level of government control, but right<BR>&gt; =
now<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt; I feel like we strong encouragements to the opposite of what we=20
  want.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; In the meantime I'll make sure that my =
company=20
  is never publicly traded so<BR>&gt; I<BR>&gt; &gt; don't have to worry =
about=20
  it. :-)<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Dave<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; =
&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Kevin =
Lochner=20
  wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; I have to take =
issue=20
  with Dave Morris re: "Playing the stock market does<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; =
not=20
  contribute to society."<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; Not only =
does a=20
  company's stock price influence its access to capital,<BR>&gt; =
but<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt; the respective stock prices of all companies provide =
information=20
  about<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; state of the economy that a ceo or=20
  entrepeneur may use in making<BR>&gt; strategic<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; =
corporate=20
  decisions.&nbsp; Stock prices are determined primarily by people =
who<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt; are "playing the stock market".<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; Investing in new companies =
does.=20
  It's a fine line, but<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; I think we've gotten too =
much=20
  separation of rich and poor in our society<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; =
because of the=20
  way our stock market currently operates, and that could<BR>&gt; =
use<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt; some correction.&nbsp; I agree that inheritance taxes are =
good as=20
  well, to<BR>&gt; help<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; prevent too many =
generations of=20
  people staying rich for free.&nbsp; But we<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; should =
try to=20
  reign in the various tricks which exist to leverage large<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;=20
  sums of cash into even larger sums via short term tricks in business=20
  and<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; stocks without actually contributing=20
  anything.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not only do they take<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; funds =
from=20
  people with less, they hurt the country overall.<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt; But he is also correct- there's a wide variance of skill =
and=20
  motivation<BR>&gt; in<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; people, so there should be =
a wide=20
  variance in income levels. I'd accept<BR>&gt; a<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; =
factor of=20
  100 variance from top to bottom in salary as a reasonable<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;=20
  maximum in relative value to society that a person could be. Some=20
  people<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; bust their asses continuously to help the =
world.=20
  Some people actively<BR>&gt; try<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; to live off of =
others=20
  without contributing anything.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I do have a<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt; problem with the factor of 1000 or 10000 variances that =
sometimes=20
  occur,<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; but those are obvious flaws that are =
difficult to=20
  correct.<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Interesting to =
consider.=20
  :-)<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Dave<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel =
Reeves=20
  wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; We've been =
debating this=20
  essay<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html">http://www.paulgraham.com/gap=
.html</A><BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; and I thought I'd move it to =
improvetheworld...<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I'll start:&nbsp; Graham is so right!&nbsp; The =
income gap=20
  between the rich and<BR>&gt; the<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; poor is=20
  wonderful!<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Actually it started more as a =
debate about=20
  the nature of capitalism and<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; interest ("why =
should=20
  money 'grow'?").&nbsp; Here was the gist:<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * =
[the=20
  economy] is a zero-sum game, isn't it?<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; - =
no<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * those earning money are taking it away, even if =
only=20
  indirectly, from<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; other people, no?<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; - no, not if you think in terms of wealth (wealth =3D =
stuff you=20
  want,<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; money =3D way to transfer =
wealth)<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * Or am I totally simplifying the haves vs. the =
have-nots=20
  with my pie<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; metaphor?<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; - yes,=20
  that's precisely the Daddy Model of Wealth!<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * =
Is it=20
  THEORETICALLY possible for no one to owe any money at all in<BR>&gt;=20
  this<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; world, i.e., that everyone just has =
money that=20
  "grows"? Or does money<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; only grow if it is =
taken away=20
  from others?<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; - You're right, not possible, =
but for=20
  the opposite reason of what you<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; seem<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; to be suggesting.&nbsp; You grow money by giving it =
to=20
  someone (lending it),<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; not by taking it =
away.<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It even got a bit heated, along the lines of "Trixie, =
I don't=20
  think<BR>&gt; it's<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; right for you to lash out =
against=20
  capitalistic/yootlicious ideas<BR>&gt; without<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=20
  grokking the answers to your questions [above]".<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Oh,=20
  and I offered a yootle to the first person who could answer =
the<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, =
with the=20
  hint that<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; it has to do with human =
mortality.&nbsp; I=20
  believe that's the only reason<BR>&gt; that<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =
holds in=20
  all circumstances.<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; In any case, Trixie wanted =
to=20
  resume the debate and this is clearly the<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =
place to do=20
  it!<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU =
REPLY (so=20
  it's easy for those<BR>&gt; not<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; interested in =
this=20
  debate to delete the whole thread).<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Ok, =
go!<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Danny<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves">http://ai.eecs.umich.edu=
/people/dreeves</A>&nbsp;=20
  - -<BR>&gt; search://"Daniel Reeves"<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =
"Everything that=20
  can be invented has been invented."<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp; -- =
Charles=20
  H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Dave Morris<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; =
cell:=20
  734-476-8769<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/">http://www-personal.umich=
.edu/~thecat/</A><BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; =
&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Dave Morris<BR>&gt; &gt; cell: 734-476-8769<BR>&gt; =
&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/">http://www-personal.umich=
.edu/~thecat/</A><BR>&gt;=20
  &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; --<BR>&gt; <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves">http://ai.eecs.umich.edu=
/people/dreeves</A>&nbsp;=20
  - -<BR>&gt; search://"Daniel Reeves"<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; "Try identifying =
the=20
  problem and then solving it."<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -- suggestion =
from=20
  Dilbert's boss<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_004E_01C7E4DF.338EB960--