Re: "Stock Market and the Real Economy"

["ÁÎ×Ó¹â Henry C.K.Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Gill, Mark" wrote:

> i think mr. gates wealth came from (a) hard work, and (b) having the
> foresight to know what the market would be like.......being a visionary
> about the future is what makes the US a "place of opportunity".......

The Department of Justice has a somewhat different view of Mr. Gates' wealthy
creating methods.
Most computer scientists would conclude that Mr. Gates contribution to computer
science stooped after the invention of DOS, which BTW, is an extremely
cumbersome system and locked the PCs into gluttons for memory even for simple
tasks.  Windows was stolen from others. MSFT was built not on technological
pioneering as much as on manipulation of the US pattern regime and monopolitics
practices.
Eienstein contributed far greater than Mr. Gates to human knowledge without even
the desire for kingly wealth.  The inventor of the Internet is still a faculty
member at MIT trying to keep the Internet open and free.  Those are the real
heros of human civilization.

> i suppose that since he has accumulated this wealth, it is now up to govt to
> force him to redistribute it, under the guise of socialism, to those who
> dont happen to have (a) the work ethic and (b) any vision.....

Socilaism and capitalism are merely term for describing socio-political systems,
and are not mutually exclusive.   One can harly describe US anti-trust and
anti-cometion regulatory regimes as scoialist.

> let us squash visionaries!!!!  and, if they happen to slip thru the net, let
> us make sure to penalize them for being such.......
>

I thought you just called Mr. Gates a visionary.

>
> mark gill
> drgill@xxxxxxxxxxx
> markgill@xxxxxxxxxx
>   Envoy to Caribbean - International Association
>      of Educators for World Peace - NGO-United Nations
>   Albert Schweitzer Society, International  (Munich, Germany)
>   Caribbean College (Trinidad, WI)
>

Educators for World Peace?  Hmmm....

Henry C.K. Liu

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ÁÎ×Ó¹â Henry C.K.Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: "Stock Market and the Real Economy"
>
> > I happen to have some slightly dated data on Gates.
> >
> > Microsoft Stock Price:  $116.5625  as of Tue Jan 4 00:41:52 EST 2000
> > Bill Gates' Wealth:  $228.062 billion or $131.632 billion by acceptable
> > accounting standards for capital gain tax calculations.
> >
> > No. of shares of Microsoft owned by Bill Gates:
> > 1995 Microsoft Proxy Statement (141,159,990 shares adjusted for splits
> > in December 1996, February 1998, and March 1999)
> > Microsoft Stock Price: Nasdaq or Security APL
> >
> > Gates' assets outside of MSFT shares are not public. Estimated to be at
> least
> > equals to holdings in MSFT ad a minimum diversification strategy.  His
> venture
> > capital investments in new start-up are incalculatable.
> >
> > Fortune Magazine estimates that Gates' MSFT wealth expands at an average
> rate
> > of US$50 million per day or US$35,000 per minute. The gap between Mr. Rich
> and
> > Mr. and Ms. Average is 311 times as great in the Age of Gates as it
> > was in the Age of Rockefeller, and historians called that the Age of
> Robber
> > Barons.  We have returned to the Age of Wealth by Devine Right.
> >
> > Henry C.K. Liu
> >
> > Basil Moore wrote:
> >
> > > Per
> > > I was disappointed that I could not find you at the Easterns? I did keep
> a
> > > look out for you.
> > > Did you come?
> > > This statistic below, capital gains greater than the wage bill, is
> really
> > > astonishing. The situation must be similar or perhaps even more  extreme
> in
> > > the States? (I read somewhere that the wealth of the three richest
> > > billionaires in the US was greater than that of the smallest and poorest
> 50
> > > countries!)
> > > Have you tried to calculate the total capital gains on stocks for the US
> > > using the Flow of Funds accounts?
> > > I intend to look it up as soon as I can break free from classwork.
> > >
> > > I am still mulling over your earlier email,
> > >
> > > Best Basil Moore
> > > At 03:06 PM 3/17/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >Basil,
> > > >
> > > >Since all stocks are available in the Flow of Funds accounts, you can
> > > >easily calculate the Haig-Simons-Lindahl income (Yh) by taking first
> > > >differences of households' wealth (Vh) and adding private consumption
> > > >(Ch):
> > > >
> > > >Yh = Vh(1) - Vh(0) + C(h),
> > > >
> > > >where (1) and (0) indicate opening and closing balances, respectively.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >(As a curiosum, I might add that in 1999, the holding gains on equity
> > > >alone in my beloved home country Sweden, exceeded the whole of the
> > > >pre-tax wage bill. It would be interesting to see how a Gini
> coefficient
> > > >based on the Haig-Simons-Lindahl income concept would turn out...)
> > > >
> > > >Cheers,
> > > >Per
> > > >
> > > >Per Gunnar Berglund
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>> Basil Moore <bmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 03/16 11:27 AM >>>
> > > >Lonnie or anyone else
> > > >does anyone know if there been an official effort, by the BEA or any
> > > >other
> > > >agency, eg the Fed. to publish a broader Disposable Income series,
> > > >including capital gain income from asset revaluations?  For such a
> > > >series
> > > >unrealized capital gains would appear as "Saving".
> > > >Basil Moore
> > > >
> > > >At 09:53 PM 3/14/00 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >>At 11:12 AM 3/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >>>I would like to break into this discussion by noting that none of
> > > >the
> > > >>>empirical evidence so far has found any significant real effect of
> > > >>>rising stock market prices--whether through investment spending or
> > > >the
> > > >>>wealth effect on consumption.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Lonnie K. Stevans
> > > >>>acslks@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>>
> > > >>  Surely, the ability of entrepreneurs to raise copious quantities
> > > >>  of money is aided and abetted by the high stock market prices.
> > > >>  Also, the ability of new companies (dot.coms) to acquire old
> > > >>  companies (AOL-Times/Warner) is possible because of high,
> > > >>  and perhaps distorted, stock prices.
> > > >>
> > > >>  And my friends and I are admitting to spending more freely because
> > > >>  our stocks held directly and indirectly make our net worth higher,
> > > >>  even if a temporary illusion.
> > > >>
> > > >>  How did someone look for that "empirical evidence"?
> > > >>
> > > >>         Mason Clark
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
> >