X-Message-Number: 28110
From: 
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:32:46 EDT
Subject: Consumption vs. Investment

In my clumsy fashion I fell short of clarity in previous rejoinders to  
Anthony's main contention, viz., that the extremely rich (and presumably, by  

extension, to some degree, the merely rich) are exploiting the poor--and indeed
I 
recall he actually said killing and enslaving them.
 
His main error is the failure to distinguish between consumption and  
investment.
 
What would be extravagant consumption? Maybe building a mansion on a  

palatial estate. Maybe buying and operating a yacht. Maybe throwing a huge Bar

Mitzvah including a safari to India with 100 elephants and mahouts and beaters  
and 
a tiger hunt (endangered tigers, of course). But do these rich splurgers  
actually consume or destroy much? Most of the money spent goes to their  

employees and suppliers, and in turn (yes, trickle-down theory) to the next  
level of 
employees and suppliers, etc. Doubtless some of the  money was  "wasted" or 

(in someone's opinion) misdirected, but that is always the case, no  exceptions.
 
Almost all of the assets of the extremely rich (with moderate exceptions in  
some cases for charitable contributions) are used for investment, either in  
their own companies, or other companies, or through purchase of bonds or 

deposit  in bank accounts, less taxes. This is working money (or "money," since 
most 
of  it is not actual currency but just electronic notations of credits and 
debits),  not mattress money, and keeps commerce and innovation alive, and  

keeps workers (including poor workers and those in government and  
administration) 
employed. 
 
There has never been a pure market economy, nor a pure managed or directed  
economy, but when the contrast has been reasonably clear, the results  have 
obviously favored the mainly-market economies.
 
It's all very well to tout "education" as the answer to our problems, but  

most people learn little, and that little slowly, and their choices are mostly
governed by their traditions or conditioning, and of course there is also a  

"marketplace" of ideas, with competition among would-be teachers or teachers of
 teachers. (Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't  
teach, teach teachers.)
 
Anthony would like himself, or someone like him, to be the main teacher of  
teachers. I, on the other hand, think it should be me, or people like me.  On 

the third hand, many favor Osama bin Laden. Since the Hindu god Shiva  is shown
with four arms, maybe we need more alternatives. At any rate, we  can 

probably depend on the chattering classes to keep things stirred up.  
Journalists, 
like other people, are mostly lazy, stupid, or/and corrupt,  but they have a 
vested interest in novelty, as well as in some forms of  tradition.
 
Robert Ettinger  
 
 


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28110