From: John Larkin
Subject: Re: High Tech economy in the US
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:10:50 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:31:40 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
>On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:19:54 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
>>On 16 Jan 2003 08:11:27 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Rolavine) wrote:
>>>Dubya is going to solve our problems though by giving money to people who won't
>>>invest. These are the same people that can borrow money for nothing now, and
>>>still don't invest. Why don't they just give us money to start companies to
>>>make crazy things. Oh wait a minute, we did that last decade, humm maybe that
>>>is why these rich people won't invest. Go figure.
>>In American Newspeak, taxing people less is 'giving people money.'
>>Rich people have no choice but to invest their money; what else can
>>they do with it?
>I guess it depends on how narrowly you define "invest". I'd not
>consider parking money in a money-market fund or some gov't guaranteed
>T-bill-like instrument as "investing". Real estate might be investing,
>income real estate certainly would be. Under no conditions would a
>Lincoln Navigator be an investment, despite what the salesman may say.
>In times of deflation, parking money starts to look attractive, as
>whatever you invest it in or spend it on tends to drop in value. A bit
>of inflation is thus said to be a good thing because it punishes
>people who park their money by eventually taking it all away.
But even 'parking' money is investment, in that the money goes into a
bank, or something, that can use it. Even parking dollars in a matress
keeps those dollars from chasing consumption; but I grant that it is
not as productive as intelligent investment in things that will be of
long-term benefit to society.
I don't, in general, consider buying stocks in the 'market' to be
investment: that's just gambling.
who actually took *two* semisters of freshman economics!