--Apple-Mail-11--966050407
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
That's a good point- if it's already criminal, we've done what we can
to correct it, which ideally solves the Enron case.
The real problem is in the case where what the evil CEO is doing is
legal. Like taking a small not for profit company for profit and
making a ton off the stock sales selling it to a big company that
wrecks it. The small company looks good on the stock market
temporarily, and the big company looks good temporarily for buying
it, but when the big company strategy ruins the value of the small
company everything is lost in the long run. But that happens 5 years
later, so short selling over that period is impractical, or just not
the norm, for most investors, so the market doesn't seem to correct
for it.
Any suggestions or counter arguments for that example?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik wrote:
> I think the argument to the "evil CEO" examples would run as
> follows. Suppose that CEO does something that he knows will cause
> the company's imminent collapse. Naturally, he's the only one who
> knows this. The problem with the reasoning below is the implicit
> assumption that the CEO will not play the stock market. But in
> theory, the CEO should short cell shares until the price comes down
> to roughly what he/she expects it to be. In the end, he'll make
> additional billions of dollars, while the market price will
> accurately forcast imminent collapse. That would be the theory.
> In reality, something seems to prevent a CEO from doing just that
> (at least conspicuously). One would be the laws against insider
> trading. Another would be that he is in effect giving evidence to
> his own wrongdoing. There is also the issue of transaction costs,
> but that's probably more minor here.
>
> I think the problem of "evil CEO" is really entirely separate from
> that of stock market inaccuracy. If the CEO is indeed evil, you
> certainly to want to create additional incentives for wrongdoing by
> creating another opportunity for them to cash in. The issue may be
> insufficient enforcement of accounting crimes, etc. on the part of
> company executives. That's where the incentives really need to be
> to "behave".
>
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Dave Morris wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
Dave Morris
cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-11--966050407
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
That's a good point- if it's already criminal, we've done what we can to
correct it, which ideally solves the Enron case. The real problem is in the
case where what the evil CEO is doing is legal. Like taking a small not for
profit company for profit and making a ton off the stock sales selling it to a
big company that wrecks it. The small company looks good on the stock market
temporarily, and the big company looks good temporarily for buying it, but
when the big company strategy ruins the value of the small company everything
is lost in the long run. But that happens 5 years later, so short selling over
that period is impractical, or just not the norm, for most investors, so the
market doesn't seem to correct for it. Any suggestions or counter
arguments for that example?=A0 On Aug 22, 07, at 10:31 AM, Yevgeniy
Vorobeychik wrote: I think the argument to the "evil CEO" examples would
run as follows. Suppose that CEO does something that he knows will cause the
company's imminent collapse. =A0 Naturally, he's the only one who knows this.
=A0 The problem with the reasoning below is the implicit assumption that the
CEO will not play the stock market. =A0 But in theory, the CEO should short
cell shares until the price comes down to roughly what he/she expects it to
be. In the end, he'll make additional billions of dollars, while the market
price will accurately forcast imminent collapse. =A0 That would be the theory
. =A0 In reality, something seems to prevent a CEO from doing just that (at
least conspicuously ). =A0 One would be the laws against insider trading.
Another would be that he is in effect giving evidence to his own wrongdoing.
=A0 There is also the issue of transaction costs, but that's probably more
minor here. I think the problem of "evil CEO" is really entirely separate
from that of stock market inaccuracy. =A0 If the CEO is indeed evil, you
certainly to want to create additional incentives for wrongdoing by creating
another opportunity for them to cash in. =A0 The issue may be insufficient
enforcement of accounting crimes, etc. on the part of company executives.
That's where the incentives really need to be to "behave". On Wed, 22 Aug
2007, Dave Morris wrote: 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?
=A0 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. =A0 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 , 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. =A0 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? =A0 The market is smarter than we think . Nor do I have a
beef with day traders . =A0 Either they're providing valuable information to
the market or they're going to get smacked hard. =A0 (In expectation at
least.) =A0 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). =A0 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. =A0 The stock price estimates (the
per-share net present value of) the cumulative future cash flow of the
company. =A0 The stock market estimates that better than any other known
mechanism . =A0 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. =A0 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). =A0
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. =A0 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! --- \/ =A0 FROM Dave Morris AT .08.20 15:21 (Yesterday) =A0 \/
--- 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. =A0 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 . =A0 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.
=A0 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. =A0 =A0 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, 07, 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: =A0 Graham is so right! =A0 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'?"). =A0 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. =A0 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. =A0 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 -- =A0 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 -
- =A0 search://"Daniel Reeves " "Everything that can be invented has been
invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner , U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
Dave Morris cell: 4-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
-- =A0 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0
search://"Daniel Reeves " "Try identifying the problem and then solving it."
=A0 -- suggestion from Dilbert's boss Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/ Dave Morris
cell: 734-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-11--966050407--
|
