--Apple-Mail-51--519737898
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
I do agree that one should err on the side of less government and
less regulation as a general rule, as a goal to be aimed for. But
that shouldn't paralyze us from action if we don't have a perfect or
perfectly known solution but we know we have real problems. No, the
free market is not an engineered system. But it is one we can
influence, and one that many are trying to influence all the time.
The default is that people will try to influence our system to
maximize their ability to profit, which is not always in line with
maximizing social good. So we have many good regulations on
capitalism in place and should continue to. Even though they hurt
people sometimes, on the whole they're worth it. We don't allow
snake oil salesman to peddle their trade anymore (selling products
claiming to have one effect and really having none), even though it's
consensual and profitable. I think perhaps we should look at some
stock deals and some CEOs that way as well, perhaps requiring more
openness about who makes how much, etc., so that motivations are more
clear when people take charge of companies and start changing them
around.
I'd agree with reducing the level of corporate welfare and
protection, which starts with reducing the lobbying influence on our
government. That would be great, and I'm far more confident in the
value/safety of this action than any change to the stock market.
But simultaneously, when a small number of people like those who took
charge of the not-for-profit research company I spoke of, are able to
for personal profit, manipulate the lives of a great number of people
without their consent or control- that needs to be regulated. To do
this, like the war on drugs which I agree has problems, you need to
take a multi-pronged approach to the sticky and difficult to resolve
situation. Mostly you target prosecution of the actual crimes (theft,
by drug users or CEOs), but also you increase awareness of the issue
via education and email chains like this one, and also you try to
reduce the motivation for the crimes to break the chain from the
other side. (thus my proposal to look at the stock market and maybe
place some controls there- I don't have a good war on drugs analogy
here :-))
Sure there are some companies that benefit from selling out. But I
think there are also many that are hurt by it. We could argue without
resolution for days because there are so many examples in both
directions. But specifically with YouTube, I'd argue that college
students would put together sites like that for free because they're
sweet, without any motivation of profit. The open source software
movement is great proof of this. And I'd further argue that while
yes, venture capital and Google have provided the site with the
resources to handle the load it currently has, I personally would
guess that it would not be as good of a product if it had started off
as a corporate profit driven venture. There would probably be
registrations and more advertisements and more limitations to
guarantee profits, and less just free functionality.
There will never be a perfect solution. The balance between
capitalism and socialism will always lead to individual cases where
something is being over or under regulated. The real target is to
reach a point where we have just as many problems pointing towards a
need to go more capitalist as more socialist, and then we're at a
pretty good point. So don't be too afraid of a solution that might
slow down profit, slow down corporate growth, or slow down creation
of wealth from time to time and in some cases. Those things are not
the end of the world. Sure, creating wealth is good, and we should
maximize that. But we should prioritize maximizing the creation of
social welfare more.
So I think it would be worth the risk to look into ways to tone down
the stock market a bit.
Dave
On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> 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."
>
>
>
Dave Morris
cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-51--519737898
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
I do agree that one should err on the side of less government and less
regulation as a general rule, as a goal to be aimed for. But that shouldn't
paralyze us from action if we don 't have a perfect or perfectly known solution
but we know we have real problems. No, the free market is not an engineered
system. But it is one we can influence, and one that many are trying to
influence all the time. The default is that people will try to influence our
system to maximize their ability to profit, which is not always in line with
maximizing social good. So we have many good regulations on capitalism in
place and should continue to. Even though they hurt people sometimes, on the
whole they're worth it. =A0We don't allow snake oil salesman to peddle their
trade anymore (selling products claiming to have one effect and really having
none), even though it's consensual and profitable. I think perhaps we should
look at some stock deals and some CEOs that way as well, perhaps requiring
more openness about who makes how much, etc., so that motivations are more
clear when people take charge of companies and start changing them around.
I'd agree with reducing the level of corporate welfare and protection, which
starts with reducing the lobbying influence on our government. That would be
great, and I'm far more confident in the value/safety of this action than any
change to the stock market.=A0 But simultaneously, when a small number of
people like those who took charge of the not-for-profit research company I
spoke of, are able to for personal profit, manipulate the lives of a great
number of people without their consent or control- that needs to be
regulated.=A0 To do this, like the war on drugs which I agree has problems,
you need to take a multi-pronged approach to the sticky and difficult to
resolve situation. Mostly you target prosecution of the actual crimes (theft,
by drug users or CEOs), but also you increase awareness of the issue via
education and email chains like this one , and also you try to reduce the
motivation for the crimes to break the chain from the other side. (thus my
proposal to look at the stock market and maybe place some controls there- I
don't have a good war on drugs analogy here :-)) Sure there are some
companies that benefit from selling out. But I think there are also many that
are hurt by it. We could argue without resolution for days because there are
so many examples in both directions. But specifically with YouTube , I'd argue
that college students would put together sites like that for free because
they're sweet, without any motivation of profit. The open source software
movement is great proof of this. And I'd further argue that while yes, venture
capital and Google have provided the site with the resources to handle the
load it currently has, I personally would guess that it would not be as good
of a product if it had started off as a corporate profit driven venture. There
would probably be registrations and more advertisements and more limitations
to guarantee profits, and less just free functionality. There will
never be a perfect solution. The balance between capitalism and socialism will
always lead to individual cases where something is being over or under
regulated . The real target is to reach a point where we have just as many
problems pointing towards a need to go more capitalist as more socialist , and
then we're at a pretty good point. So don't be too afraid of a solution that
might slow down profit, slow down corporate growth, or slow down creation of
wealth from time to time and in some cases. Those things are not the end of
the world. Sure, creating wealth is good , and we should maximize that. But we
should prioritize maximizing the creation of social welfare more. So I
think it would be worth the risk to look into ways to tone down the stock
market a bit . Dave =A0 On Aug 24, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Daniel Reeves
wrote: You're thinking in terms of more government interference . =A0 I
think the answer is less. =A0 Telling people how much they can pay each
other or what they can buy from who when is dangerous territory. =A0 Even if
you don't have a philosophical problem with it (I kind of do) it simply tends
to backfire . =A0 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. =A0 Not that I deny that something
went awry in that instance. The prospect of getting bought out is what
motivates many brilliant startups. =A0 That's why we have flickr and youtube .
=A0 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: =A0 thinking of the economy as an engineered
system to be tweaked (or in Trixie's case reengineered altogether ). =A0
Trying to conceptualize it that way leads to the dark side! :) =A0
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 ." =A0 And of course even that turns out
to be an incredibly bad idea. =A0 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. =A0 Well said. --- \/ =A0 FROM Dave Morris AT
07.08.24 :58 (Today) =A0 \/ --- 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 . =A0 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. =A0 And just because it's not easy
doesn't mean it isn't right. :-) Dave On Aug 23, 07, 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 =3D bad. =A0 It's a
theory with no predictive power, ie, not scientific, ie, useless ! --- \/ =A0
FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22 :16 (Today) =A0 \/ --- 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. =A0 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 ? =A0 My position is that
Dave only appears right through the power of hindsight . On 8/22/07, Daniel
Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu > 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?) --- \/ =A0 FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22 :57
(Today) =A0 \/ --- 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 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. =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. 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. 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 -- 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/
-- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0 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 =A0 - - =A0 search://"Daniel
Reeves " "Backup not found. (A)bort (R)etry (T)ake down the entire network:"
-- =A0 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0
search://"Daniel Reeves " 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 " "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/ -- =A0
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0 search://"Daniel
Reeves " "Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do
for humanity." Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-51--519737898--
|
