In my very first post I stated that of course Investment EVENTUALLY is likely to result in more TOTAL WEALTH. That is not being discussed; it is moot. The question is, at the time of the change in Stock Prices, or at the time of the actual sale or re-sale of the Stock, has TOTAL WEALTH increased?
You want to consider whether or not BOLIVIANS - LOCALLY - Benefit. Well of course they do - and right away! They prefer the huge prices they are paid for their crummy Stock. As for whether or not Gates is insane, you imply that if Gates does not stand to gain Money then he is indeed insane. Well, then he must be insane in Real Life. When I was in New Hampshire I went to a Public Library and there was a computer AND an Internet Connection that Bill Gates had GIVEN AWAY to that Library. Free! No Charge! No possible way to make a cent! If you do not dispute my use of the term TOTAL WEALTH, then what have you been arguing about? Why, in that case, would you have disputed what I have said? I have stated several times that I agree with you about the Mutual Benefit of Free Trades. I even used the word Moot in connection with that agreement. Ypu have in the past stated that Market Value is a part of Total Wealth. Do you now say that you no longer assert that Market Value is a part of Total Wealth? (Remember, we're talking about TOTAL Wealth, not just the increased Wealth that the Owners of increasing-value Stocks are gaining - ASSUMING they sell - sure, THEY will have more Wealth, but consider the whole picture please: when they trade their Stock for something the other guy gives up that something for it.) --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Zack, > > Interesting situation you propose. Again, I will ignore the definition > of wealth but your question remains worth considering if I address > whether, say, Bolivians are better off, worsened, or remain the same. > > Bill Gates has, in your scenario, purchase a controlling interest in > nearly all of the significant businesses in Bolivia. That he offered > double the going rate suggests that Bill Gates is now insane or > extraordinarily canny. The expected result will depend on how you judge > the perspicacity of Gates vs. the former owners. > > If Gates is sane, he would never have offered double the going rate > unless he confidently expected to be able to increase the value of his > holdings to exceed the amount he offered. In other words, he has a > plan. Perhaps it will work. Bolivia may be better off. > > If Gates is insane, he will probably lose most of his properties in time > to bankruptcy. At which time, the remaining actual resources will be > put to more productive use. Meanwhile, Bolivians still have his cash. > Gates has effectively donated his cash and holdings to Bolivians who, > hopefully, can make better use of it.) > > Either way, Bolivia now has Gates running much of its business -- > perhaps running it much better. Gates does have ten Billion dollars > less; but he also has control of (by prior evaluation) five billion > dollars worth of Bolivia's economy. Bolivia also now has many former > owners of businesses with cash to spend. Perhaps they will do so > wisely. It seems entirely possible that Bolivia will enter a period of > immense renewal and growth. > > Of course, Bolivia has just received a major injection of cash into its > economy. The prices of labor and goods will be bid up for a time, even > if none of the injected cash is spent on consumer goods directly. > > It seems to me that the only thing one can predict with certainty is > that things will not remain the same. > > Zack Bass wrote: > > Suppose that Bill Gates moves to Bolivia. He looks over the Stock > > Prices on the Cochabamba Stock Exchange and decides to buy all of the > > stocks for exactly double that amount. > > After that takes place, all stock prices have doubled. Has TOTAL > > WEALTH increased? Of course not! Gates now has ten billion dollars > > less than he had yesterday, and those who sold their stock now have > > altogether ten billion dollars more than they had yesterday. Zero Sum > > in Wealth, although not in Market Value of course. > > Even if, after some market readjustment and sanity, buyers realize > > that the worth of the factories and companies whose stock was sold has > > not changed, the stock values drop back down (since no one will pay > > what Gates paid), that does not alter the Total Wealth, does it? If > > Gates now decides to get out of the Market, sure HE has lost a lot in > > the entire process, but the exact same amount has been gained by others. > > > > > > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Zack Bass" <zakbas@> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> Gary F. York wrote: > >> > >>> In some broader sense, wealth is how much we covet > >>> services and stuff -- more particularly, other people's stuff. > >>> Consider a limit case: everyone is perfectly happy with > >>> what they have; no one wants to exchange anything at > >>> all for something someone else controls. > >>> Everyone is completely self-sufficient. > >>> Market 'value' of everything is zero. > >>> > >>> > >> If we do not equate Market Value with Wealth, and most people's notion > >> of Wealth does not do that, then there is a lot of Wealth there and, > >> as you admit, zero Market Value. > >> Few people would say that such a situation, with everyone happy with > >> what he has, does not contain Wealth! Only an Economist, whose > >> livelihood depends on some notion of Active Economy, would feel > >> uncomfortable with that. > >> > >> > >>> Now we instantly recognize that, unless this > >>> situation came about through some technological > >>> utopia, the society either is or is going to > >>> rapidly become rather wretched. > >>> > >>> > >> Doesn't matter HOW it came about. As long as everyone has everything > >> he wants, there is lots of Wealth. As soon as some Individual uses up > >> what he needs or wants, and wants more, he'll be amenable to a Trade. > >> > >> > >>> Baring such a utopia, the willingness to exchange our > >>> services and stuff with others for services and stuff > >>> we value more than that which we hold is a very good thing. > >>> > >>> > >> No, it is neither a Good nor a Bad thing, it is merely what a Free > >> Individual may or may not decide to do. > >> > >> > >>> So part of what we consider wealth > >>> -- in this broader sense -- depends not on > >>> how we personally value what we hold but on > >>> how greatly others value what we hold. > >>> And this latter valuation, the market value, > >>> is subject to rapid change. > >>> > >>> > >> So you are saying that an internal mental state can produce or destroy > >> what you call Wealth. Excuse me, I don't know anyone who uses the > >> word Wealth in that way. > >> > >> > >>> It is tempting to consider this "market value" kind > >>> of wealth as less real, less important and certainly > >>> less tangible than _real_ wealth -- existing > >>> goods and services. > >>> > >>> > >> Services do not exist except fleetingly. They are GONE. As I have > >> pointed out, they are not Wealth, even though they can have Market > >> Value. "Labor Force" might constitute a form of Wealth. The Labor > >> itself, no. > >> > >> Your notion of Internal Mental States as one kind of Wealth is just > >> bizarre. It implies that Mass Hypnosis could produce limitless > >> amounts of Wealth in a single session. > >> > >> If everyone suddenly becomes interested in a Fad for Modern Art, and > >> the Market Value increases a million times in one day, has Wealth > >> increased? > >> Certainly SOME people are going to suddenly gain more Wealth (assuming > >> they actually sell their junk for the Market Value), but the exact > >> same amount is coming from some Other people. Zero Sum in Wealth, > >> although not in Internal Mental State (Satisfaction). Just like a > >> Stock Trade or any other Market Trade. Yes, every Free Trade results > >> in a Benefit (Satisfaction) to both parties, but that is not Wealth. > >> Remember the Mutual Masturbation example. > >> > >> Note that I am *NOT* trying to make up a definition for Wealth, I am > >> trying to show how a very normal concept of Wealth does not allow such > >> bizarre definitions as yours to result in Real Wealth as most people > >> envision Wealth. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > >
