Aw, Jesus Christ motherfucking hell, even part two exceeds the character limit. I'm surprised LJ isn't bankrupt already.
1) You're making investing in the stock market akin to investing in the traditionally safer but less volatile capital retreats...You're throttling the profit potential but without staunching the loss potential, effectively making investing in resources more viable than investing in innovation...
Perhaps so, in which case the same mechanism should be applied to commodities.
I knew you would say that. As usual, you want to impose sweeping new laws onto the masses to prohibit their freedom just to punish a tiny fraction whom you see behaving irresponsibly (trying to make money quickly). How draconian. Soon under your government everyone will have to wear helmets everywhere. Anyway, you apply the mechanism to commodities, without realizing that actually, everything is a commodity. So now that you have stifled investment in resources, our money goes elsewhere. Into cars and baseball cards and artwork. Do you put your tyrannical little chokehold around those now? Prevent artwork resale within a year for profit? What next? Is it OK to sell my house the same year I bought it and make a profit, or would you rather people were forced to live somewhere a year before moving? Is the instability of people's free movement unsettling you as well?
2) Your plan throttles innovation. People invest in what they see being the technology of tomorrow, and companies IPO to generate the capital required to do that R&D and bring that innovation to the market as quickly as possible.
You're buying into the myth, not the reality. People in fact, hand their pension funds over to money managers who mostly spend their time trying to out-guess other money managers. In other words, most investment decisions are made with an eye to what is sexy, not what might make good investments.
No, you're insane - you think Google in any way represents the actual stock market. You think a newborn stock in which there is expected volatility in an emerging technology somehow represents what actually happens to all stocks instead of the opposite: it happens to almost none.
Your plan requires investors to be clairvoyant.
No more so than now. The only difference is they have to be better clairvoyants in order to make significant profits.
Yep. And the more clairvoyant you have to be, the safer you're required to be to mitigate the potential loss. A very anti-innovation, anti-technology economy. May as well buy oil and invest only in car companies that promise to keep using my oil.
Don't be silly, I did not presume that all stocks accrue value. Nor did I assume or even imply that my proposal doesn't permit mis-steps. Quite the opposite. My proposal acknowledges that mis-steps sometimes happen, but encourages investors to take the long view and not (for example) dump their shares in Google its executive speaks plain sense.
Investors already take the long view - that's what RRSPs and mutual funds are for. You seem to think there's only one kind of investment, the kind where money managers read tech articles and try to outguess each other. But that's what they ask you when you give them your money: do you want to build your money relatively safely but slowly and retire on it; or do you want to try at greater risk to make some money quickly. Where's the problem? The only problem I see is that you think all people ought to have your goals, and those that do not should be legislated into having them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 07:53 pm (UTC)Aw, Jesus Christ motherfucking hell, even part two exceeds the character limit. I'm surprised LJ isn't bankrupt already.
1) You're making investing in the stock market akin to investing in the traditionally safer but less volatile capital retreats...You're throttling the profit potential but without staunching the loss potential, effectively making investing in resources more viable than investing in innovation...
Perhaps so, in which case the same mechanism should be applied to commodities.
I knew you would say that. As usual, you want to impose sweeping new laws onto the masses to prohibit their freedom just to punish a tiny fraction whom you see behaving irresponsibly (trying to make money quickly). How draconian. Soon under your government everyone will have to wear helmets everywhere. Anyway, you apply the mechanism to commodities, without realizing that actually, everything is a commodity. So now that you have stifled investment in resources, our money goes elsewhere. Into cars and baseball cards and artwork. Do you put your tyrannical little chokehold around those now? Prevent artwork resale within a year for profit? What next? Is it OK to sell my house the same year I bought it and make a profit, or would you rather people were forced to live somewhere a year before moving? Is the instability of people's free movement unsettling you as well?
2) Your plan throttles innovation. People invest in what they see being the technology of tomorrow, and companies IPO to generate the capital required to do that R&D and bring that innovation to the market as quickly as possible.
You're buying into the myth, not the reality. People in fact, hand their pension funds over to money managers who mostly spend their time trying to out-guess other money managers. In other words, most investment decisions are made with an eye to what is sexy, not what might make good investments.
No, you're insane - you think Google in any way represents the actual stock market. You think a newborn stock in which there is expected volatility in an emerging technology somehow represents what actually happens to all stocks instead of the opposite: it happens to almost none.
Your plan requires investors to be clairvoyant.
No more so than now. The only difference is they have to be better clairvoyants in order to make significant profits.
Yep. And the more clairvoyant you have to be, the safer you're required to be to mitigate the potential loss. A very anti-innovation, anti-technology economy. May as well buy oil and invest only in car companies that promise to keep using my oil.
Don't be silly, I did not presume that all stocks accrue value. Nor did I assume or even imply that my proposal doesn't permit mis-steps. Quite the opposite. My proposal acknowledges that mis-steps sometimes happen, but encourages investors to take the long view and not (for example) dump their shares in Google its executive speaks plain sense.
Investors already take the long view - that's what RRSPs and mutual funds are for. You seem to think there's only one kind of investment, the kind where money managers read tech articles and try to outguess each other. But that's what they ask you when you give them your money: do you want to build your money relatively safely but slowly and retire on it; or do you want to try at greater risk to make some money quickly. Where's the problem? The only problem I see is that you think all people ought to have your goals, and those that do not should be legislated into having them.