From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:22:16 GMT

In article <9210011732.AA02371@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "The Stick in The Mud" Horne") writes:
>From: fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613))
>Subject: Re: Effects of U.S. national debt
>Message-ID: <1992Oct1.113056.18468@clpd.kodak.com>
>Sender: news@clpd.kodak.com
>Nntp-Posting-Host: li
>Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
>References: <9209302356.AA18495@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>
>Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:30:56 GMT
>Lines: 44
>
>>More like they got wealthy STARTING their own company, and then shared
>>some of it with the public.
>
>           NO.  Most likely, no in FACT, they started their own company
>      and then offered shares in the company, letting the public share
>      IT's wealth with them, in hopes of making more back.
>
>           Consider this.  On paper, Bill Gates is worth 7 billion.
>      All due to shares in Microsoft.  Yet, if we examine the actual
>      COMPANY, we find it can be easily duplicated for a few hundred
>      million dollars.

THIS is what they teach in Business School today ?!?!?!

If this is the type of thought that is representative of what the new crop of B-school
graduates are taught, the USA is certainly in deep trouble.

If Microsoft could be *easily* duplicated for a few hundred million dollars, why hasn't
any large company done this and gained a substantial earnings growth rate on a much
smaller float than Microsoft ?  There are certainly a number of companies in the USA (and
the rest of the world) who can get a couple of hundred million easily, and in which a large
software division would fit nicely. (IBM, AT&T, etc...)

>           Suppose 10 men, all making the same salary, all wanting to
>      buy a specific house.  They would each be willing to pay  X amount.
>
>           Suppose 10 men, with staggered incomes, all wanting to buy.
>      ONE would be willing to pay  X + Y amount.
>
>           And so marginal cost is driven up, as a greater inequality
>      in incomes occurs.
>
>           Let's continue stretching the function.
>
>           Suppose we have 10,000 men, with staggered incomes, with
>       GREAT inequality of income.  One man is truly willing to pay
>       X + Y + Z amount.  But he doesn't have to.  Because the he
>       can only affect a certain amount of "area".  The function breaks
>       down, and money starts pouring into coffers and out of the economy.
>
>           An interesting idea at least.

And complete nonsense at that.  The thing you must remember is that not all houses
are identical, some will be build for people who are willing to pay X, some for X+Y,
and some for X+Y+Z.

>           Tell me.  What is the difference between an economy where:
>
>     a)  5 % of the population own everything, and is called capitalism
>     and
>     b)  5 % of the population own everything, and is called communism?

Even if this were true, and it isn't, under most capitalist systems, 'everything'
is larger than in the communist systems.

>>Maybe you should check to see if that "business" school was accredited,
>>because you got ripped off.
>
>             Boise State University, rated in the top 20 business
>     schools in the nation, according to some such somewhere.

See, who said there was no reason why the USA is slowly declining, the top B-schools
are teaching nonsense to their students. (See Forbes issue about one year ago, "The
MBA Glut")

Mark

Newsgroups: misc.invest