Subject: Re: a stocks and dividends question
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:19:40 +0900

>>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn Winebarger <> writes:

    Lynn>     Small quote from there:

    sjt> Second, the wealth is productively invested, rather than
    sjt> simply bank float that cannot be productive.

    Lynn> Now, how do you know the wealth is productively invested?

It's an assumption.  In general, somewhat justified by the reality
that investor oversight is more or less effective.

But think about it.  Robin, Ben, and Tom write like managements are
the enemy and untrustworthy.  Huh?  Ain't this FSB?  As Pogo says, "we
have met the enemy, and he is us."  I think in this context it's
reasonable to assume that _we_ are productive and _our_ investors
won't have too much difficulty getting straght numbers from us.

    Lynn> Do you mean that the reinvestment grounds out into some
    Lynn> traditional, concrete notion of productive?

Yes: physical inputs are acquired and transformed into physical
outputs, of higher value.

    Lynn> By the way, what do you mean by a "bank float"?

What it always meant: the period between a creditor accepting a
payment instrument (such as a check) and his bank actually collecting
the funds from mine.  Has the time-hallowed practice of "kiting" the
rent check disappeared in this day and age of automatic debits?

The way the Ponzi game works, in the period between taking money from
you and you cashing it, I am recruiting new suckers to give me more
cash.  Not quite the same as depending on the bank float, but very
similar in that if you miss the timing, the whole scheme collapses,
leaving nothing of value, and punishment for the perpetrator if caught.

Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.