X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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 l7P3qpnd016964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:52:51 -0400 Received: from eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.131]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7P3q7KO016679 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:52:20 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46CFA766.2350E.1061 ; 24 Aug 2007 23:52:06 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7P3pJrZ016566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:51:19 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l7P3pcnd016914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:51:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l7P3pbDm016911; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:51:38 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: <78195003-0498-4DB5-A1CE-CAA5605DE533 Æ umich.edu> Message-ID: References: <93EC811F-946D-4EA2-ADE3-5D43B46EA65E Æ umich.edu> <4CE28F9E-2B6E-4834-B3FA-1C3FBF2E7341 Æ umich.edu> <02548635-1F0E-4244-847D-8FA54DACAD4B Æ umich.edu> <1acf35a70708221835o75734aa2waa72f00b69632a18 Æ mail.gmail.com>

<78195003-0498-4DB5-A1CE-CAA5605DE533 Æ umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:51:37 -0400 (EDT) To: Dave Morris cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu, Steven Reeves , reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu, reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: mind the gap You're thinking in terms of more government interference. I think the answer is less. Telling people how much they can pay each other or what they can buy from who when is dangerous territory. Even if you don't have a philosophical problem with it (I kind of do) it simply tends to backfire. Getting rid of corporate welfare and legal privileges for corporations is a better place to start. And I just don't buy the point of your not-for-profit company example, Dave. Not that I deny that something went awry in that instance. The prospect of getting bought out is what motivates many brilliant startups. That's why we have flickr and youtube. Certainly it motivated them to add the polish and scale to support millions of users. I feel there is a fallacy implicit in proposals along the lines of Dave's and Trixie's: thinking of the economy as an engineered system to be tweaked (or in Trixie's case reengineered altogether). Trying to conceptualize it that way leads to the dark side! :) Consider the fundamental difference between a law like "no stealing" and a law prohibiting/limiting consensual behavior, in Dave's case buying and selling stocks from each other or paying each other to run companies. Laws like that require a very careful argument. For example, "no buying drugs because you'll become an addict and turn to crime." And of course even that turns out to be an incredibly bad idea. Focusing our enforcement effort on actual crime (as opposed to behavior that may or may not cause indirect harm to society) would be far more effective. Dave, I do concede the meta argument about falsifiability. Well said. --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.24 13:58 (Today) \/ --- > I guess disagreement with that would be my whole point. The CEOs benefit > hugely, but the company is less effective than it was before at providing > valuable research to society, and the individuals involved are less well off > too, so how does society benefit by the company getting screwed? The example > I speak of was a small research company that was doing its job very well as a > not-for-profit entity, not a failing company or one that was getting left > behind by the changing times. It was a valuable entity that no-one was > getting rich off of, that one person saw the opportunity to get rich off of > because of how the stock market works, and so they did so, without thought > for long term benefit to the company or society. The stock market enabled > this. > > > In support of capitalist society, ways to regulate this such as controlling > CEO salaries or stock deals could benefit long term shareholder value, and > thus benefit society in the long run by optimizing value/wealth creation over > time. (the ideas created by this company ended up being used by government > programs, DoD, and others, so the value was getting out to society when it > was being created, even if no one individual was getting rich because of it) > > Extended point- the maximization of profit and shareholder value is not > synonymous with the maximization of benefit to society, and in fact is often > quiet opposite. But I guess we'd be doomed in coming to any useful > conclusions if I expand this thread into that other conversation as well. :-) > > I don't have a solution- I haven't come up with specific suggestions that > would improve the stock market really, and I'd readily acknowledge that our > system works better than any that anyone else is using at the moment. I just > see a potential for improvement to occur. Figuring out how to do it is the > whole point of this list, yes? :-) > > Dave > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Kevin Lochner wrote: > >> but you're forgetting my point, which was that even if some companies are >> getting "screwed over", said screwing may benefit society on the whole. >> >> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Dave Morris wrote: >> >>> It is falsifiable, just not easily, as too many lazy scientists crave. :-) >>> The experimental test is to implement change in the stock market and see >>> if by somehow removing the easy incentive for leaders of companies to get >>> rich by screwing the company over, the number of companies getting thus >>> screwed over goes down. It would be a very difficult experiment spanning >>> at least a decade maybe more. The control variables are a huge pain in the >>> ass since so many other effects would take place over that span of time. >>> You might have to run many experiments testing many variables to >>> definitively disprove it. But it is conceivable that you could test the >>> theory and prove it false, or by not proving it false increase your >>> confidence that it may be true. And just because it's not easy doesn't >>> mean it isn't right. :-) >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:51 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote: >>> >>>> But then you have an unfalsifiable theory, Dave! [1] >>>> Also, as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. >>>> [1] For the nonscientists, and I hope this isn't already obvious, but >>>> unfalsifiable = bad. It's a theory with no predictive power, ie, not >>>> scientific, ie, useless! >>>> --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22 23:16 (Today) \/ --- >>>>> Not being a private investigator, or the FBI, and given that they have >>>>> been unable to identify such things in advance, I'm not willing to bet >>>>> on it. Some stock rises are good. Others are based on short term >>>>> thinking. And 1 year may not be long enough, it may be 5 or 10 years >>>>> before a company that was good for 25 years finally is destroyed. Or the >>>>> company may be bought out by other companies such that it ceases to >>>>> exist as such and thus becomes impossible to track. You only really find >>>>> out through hindsight- when you have friends who've worked there and >>>>> described in person what happened. Or when CEOs retire as >>>>> multi-billionaires at the end of 50 years of this and reveal what they >>>>> did 25 years ago. >>>>> So I don't think betting on it is the right way to resolve the matter. >>>>> :-) >>>>> How much do you have in the stock market these days? How do you choose >>>>> who you invest it in? How long term do you think? >>>>> I've got about $16k, though I'm planning to pull that out soon and put >>>>> it in my house instead once the account vests (my EDA retirement is >>>>> basically an online stock trading account). Most of it is in FedEx and >>>>> UPS, since I heard on NPR that their stock was way down due to gas >>>>> prices, and I thought to myself "I use them every day in my company and >>>>> they do a great job, that doesn't make sense, they'll bounce back". So >>>>> far I've been right, but only about 5-6% on average, not too exciting. >>>>> The next time I invest in the stock market will probably be to support a >>>>> small company trying to get started. I may be the one starting it. :-) >>>>> Dave >>>>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote: >>>>>> Not sure if this was clear but I meant to propose this as an actual >>>>>> wager. I think disagreements are much more interesting when the >>>>>> participants can quantify their confidence in their positions. >>>>>> (I also have the ulterior motive that we're working on adding new >>>>>> betting mechanisms, and decision/prediction mechanisms, into yootles.) >>>>>> Any other ways we can turn this disagreement into a prediction about >>>>>> some measurable future thing? My position is that Dave only appears >>>>>> right through the power of hindsight. >>>>>> On 8/22/07, Daniel Reeves wrote: >>>>>>> Dave, if you pick a stock that surges up on some short-term news I'll >>>>>>> bet >>>>>>> you a large amount of money that it will still be up, say, 1 year >>>>>>> later. >>>>>>> (Does that pin down the heart of what we disagree about?) >>>>>>> --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22 09:57 (Today) \/ --- >>>>>>>> You point out some potential benefits, and others have pointed out >>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>> examples. I agree with these, but my argument is not that the stock >>>>>>>> market >>>>>>>> should be abolished. It does provide value. My argument is that it's >>>>>>>> got >>>>>>>> flaws that are getting worse, and thus should be recognized. >>>>>>>> What of examples like Enron where executives obfuscated the records, >>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>> millions to billions, then screwed everyone else when it collapsed? >>>>>>>> Or the >>>>>>>> CEOs who inflate the value, cash out in the stock market, then leave >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> the company collapses into ruins in a series of buyouts? In these >>>>>>>> cases the >>>>>>>> stock market and the traders and the collective wisdom are easily >>>>>>>> fooled, and >>>>>>>> get fooled over and over again, at least in the short run. But the >>>>>>>> way the >>>>>>>> stock market works incentivizes these short term illusions because it >>>>>>>> creates >>>>>>>> the ability to get really rich because of them. As stocks trade >>>>>>>> faster and >>>>>>>> easier and information becomes more distant from the traders this >>>>>>>> will become >>>>>>>> more prevalent, or so I believe. >>>>>>>> How do we fix that without removing the collective wisdom evaluation >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> corporate strategies? Though additionally I'll put my faith in a >>>>>>>> handful of >>>>>>>> experts over the collective wisdom any day. I think the collective >>>>>>>> wisdom >>>>>>>> lags and follows those who really understand the companies and >>>>>>>> technology >>>>>>>> anyway. >>>>>>>> As far as short-selling companies who are pursuing the above >>>>>>>> strategies, I >>>>>>>> think that is a good strategy, and I'm sure there are some who do >>>>>>>> make a >>>>>>>> profit doing that... but it requires longer term thinking and longer >>>>>>>> term >>>>>>>> strategies to do so, and the fact that we're moving away that as a >>>>>>>> society >>>>>>>> means that such strategies won't counterbalance the problem. Though >>>>>>>> again >>>>>>>> the stock market alone isn't the only cause of short term thinking. I >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> think it's one piece of the issue, and perhaps one that could be >>>>>>>> adjusted to >>>>>>>> help improve it. >>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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-prices/ >>>>>>>>> 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 = stuff you >>>>>>>>>>>>> want, >>>>>>>>>>>>> money = 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 >>>>>>>> Dave Morris >>>>>>>> cell: 734-476-8769 >>>>>>>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/ >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" >>>>>>> "Backup not found. (A)bort (R)etry (T)ake down the entire network:" >>>>>> -- >>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" >>>>> Dave Morris >>>>> cell: 734-476-8769 >>>>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/ >>>> -- >>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" >>>> "We're kind of being trained to be warriors, only in a much funner way." >>>> -- Jesus Camp participant, age ~9 >>> >>> 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" "Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do for humanity."