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/
>
>