From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 10:54:43 MDT
Dan,
This second message below from "Gordon Swobe" was also from me (gts = my
initials). It is largely redundant. I had sent this shorter message on
the previous day from a friend's computer via my msn/hotmail account. I
thought it had never appeared due to rejection of my msn address, which
isn't registered here. I then rewrote another detailed message after I
returned home, which appeared first. The longer more detailed message is
preferable for reply.
-gts
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Swobe
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: RE: What does the stock market supply?
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>
> gts wrote
> >> I'm sorry but that's not correct. The "capacity"
> >> of earning money from a
> >> hammer cannot be separated from its utility as a
> >> hammer, as you do
> >> above.
> >
> > By "cannot be separated", I should presume you mean
> > "ought not be separated"
>
> I mean that you cannot logically speak of a hammer
> having some property that gives its owner an ability
> to earn a living separately from the hammer's property
> of "utility." The carpenter buys the hammer because of
> its utility in driving nails. He earns a living
> because other people are willing to pay for the
> utility of having their fences and porches fixed by
> him and his hammer. These economic transactions are in
> a category completely separate from those we are
> considering that occur in the market for financial
> assets.
>
> >, because it's trivial to
> > draw a distinction between buying goods that give
> > a person happiness (utility, as the utilitarians
> > call it)
>
> Utilitarians are those who advocate the ethical
> philosophy of utilitarianism. In case you're not clear
> on this, one needn't be a utilitarian to be an
> economist.
>
> > I'll charge that even the economists call the
> > latter "capital", and that
> > the hammer has the characteristic I've described in
> > common with stocks.
>
> To a carpenter, the hammer is "capital equipment," a
> term which should not to be confused with "investment
> capital." That both terms contain the word "capital"
> should not be misconstrued to mean that an investment
> in capital equipment (hammers, trucks, etc) is
> anything like an investment in financial assets
> (stocks, bonds, etc). The former have utility value
> but no intrinsic value as a investments, per se. While
> business owners "invest" in capital equipment, capital
> equipment is depreciated each year on the books and
> eventually replaced by more capital equipment.
> Conversely, financial assets have no utility but they
> do have intrinsic value as investments. It's very
> important to make a distinction between the two.
>
> You mentioned in a previous message that I had
> mischaracterized your question and Lee Corkin's (sp?)
> question. Perhaps I mischaracterized yours but not
> his. Just to be clear, I was not addressing anyone's
> question, necessarily. I entered this thread when I
> saw someone writing words to the effect that shares
> have no value unless they eventually pay a dividend.
> Lee Corkin insisted that I was wrong, and so a debate
> ensued.
>
> I did not address your words at all except in so much
> as I answered the question in the subject header.
>
> The answer to your question in the subject header is
> that the stockmarket supplies corporate profits to
> shareholders in the form of dividends or capital
> appreciation or both.
>
> More later. I'm writing from out of town on a friend's
> computer....
>
> -gts
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> http://news.yahoo.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:04 MST