rkbabang

<sigh> It is a lucky thing for all of humanity that markets do not require its participants to even begin to understand them in order to positively contribute. The reason capitalism works is that people can act in their own self interest and the vast majority of the time society's interests are aligned with it. This alignment of interests is crucial, since people in general will act in their own self interest anyway, regardless of the position they are in or the system they live under. Which is why socialism/communism/or any other statism can't work, those in power will always act in their own self interest rather than in the interest of those they "serve" ("It's a cookbook!"). Anyway, this lack of understanding, and lack of ability to think more than one or two steps through a process, however does put the entire system in constant jeopardy in any democracy.

There is a fallacy to what your saying Eric, you are saying you produced this money and the government gets a cut, as well as those who produce goods that you buy. But what about the capacity that you took it away from. What you said could apply to playing poker. I don't think poker is doing good in the sense of the title of this thread, although it seems to be digressing. Now I am not saying you aren't doing any good. I just asked you and all here what they think of themselves. It is subjective. I just find your argument puzzling. I mean, you could have taken it away from some hedge fund that manages some old lady's pension. Mind you still in a perverse way I feel that hedge fund and even that old lady deserved it! Perhaps I'm a better capital allocator than that hedge fund manager and I've done society a favor by boosting the return on that capital? Therefore, society will get an inproved return on capital if I keep the money rather than having it taken from me by the tax authorities. I agree completely. Maybe we should all be buying property in Detroit while it's still cheap. "Economic Freedom Zones would see federal income and corporate taxes cut to 5%, and federal payroll taxes reduced to 2% for employers and employees... areas designated Economic Freedom Zones would carry no capital gains taxes" Sen. Rand Paul makes good on Detroit promise, unveils plan for hard hit cities

It depends on what "adds value to society" means to you. It clearly adds value to you (and I'll guess) your family. Again there are 7 Billion people on Earth, I have no delusions that anything I do will "move the needle" as far as value to society goes. If I can add value to my own life and the lives of those in my family, without causing anyone else harm. Then at the end of the day, what I've done has been a net positive to society. I'm not superman, Mother Teresa, or even Elon Musk. The original question wasn't "Are value investors carrying the entire world on our shoulders and should everyone else humbly bow down to our greatness?" It was "Are we doing any good?".

I just edited out the ad hominem attack from my last post. That was uncalled for and I apologize. I find many on this thread are not thinking things through past more than one step. This is the same mistake Marx made thinking that management, capitalists, property owners were all unnecessary only workers mattered. In reality the whole economy is intertwined and almost every job is necessary in someway. The best way to know that is if it is profitable. Yes, of course government laws/regulations/protectionism/etc get in the way of this somewhat, but in general it is still the case. Saying that value investors are not necessary because only venture capitalists give money to young startups and contribute to our society is not thinking things all the way through. If there were no functioning stock market on earth, would there exist any venture capitalists willing to fund startups? What would motivate them to do so? Altruism? It is the wheels that move the car, so are all the other components superfluous?

When has Google raised equity after its IPO though? I do not believe their IPO was driven by need for cash either...but the fact that you have to become a public company once the number of shareholders reaches a certain point. Furthermore, value investors are not really investing in these fast growing young tech companies. <edited> This is like saying the CEO of Starbucks doesn't play a role, because he doesn't make anyone coffee. In order for fast growing young tech companies to have access to the capital markets, the capital markets have to both exist and function somewhat efficiently. There is an important role for value investors, growth speculators, and short sellers in making this happen and keeping it running. Many investors play more than one of those roles with different investments or at different times. I've invested in companies such as Netflix, which has never been a good value investment, yet I've made money on it. I've never shorted a stock, but I know some on this board do. It is obvious to anyone who pays attention that the market that it isn't always efficient and rational. Investors taking advantage of those inefficiencies when they show up is what helps make the market more efficient. Before you object and scream that I'm generalizing, notice I didn't say "efficient" I said "more efficient". Efficient markets only exist in textbooks.

I don't agree. Beneficial is just beneficial. This reminds me of the Nietzschean discussion of "virtue." After Christianity, people believed something "virtuous" had to be something "good" according to Christian values. But, for the Greeks, virtue was excellence. So if you were, say, an excellent liar, you were virtuous. We now have a new religion in much of the world called capitalism and for this new religion, virtue is benefit. Not to speak ill of the dead but Steve Jobs might be an example of such a thing. He was pretty much a selfish asshole for most of his life but he was rich and created benefit for society. So he is virtuous. You can sometimes label actions as good/bad, or beneficial/harmful, or virtuous/non-virtuous, but you can never label individual people with those terms and be 100% correct. We all have our good and bad points. Some more than others in both directions, of course.

I think your right in that goodness doesn't equal beneficial, but beneficial is a subset of goodness. I disagree that you can have something beneficial, but not good. 1) I'll ignore the going back in time thing, because that isn't possible and it wouldn't necessarily be beneficial. You don't know what would have happened if someone had killed Hitler, it could have been worse. And most certainly wouldn't be beneficial for those who are alive today, but would never be born if this happened. Also I highly object to your Native American example. I don't think you can call the massacring Native Americans any more beneficial than you can call massacring Jews. I disagree that the US's existence is a net positive on the world and I disagree that it is can be described as a benevolent empire. I understand why you would think that, having been educated in your formative years by the very same regime and not personally knowing anyone the regime's bombs have killed. 2) While certainly possible, something that is good, can rarely be said to have no benefit. The person who set out to cure cancer, probably supported himself and his family with that job and it had benefits for all of them. Also it added to the whole of human knowledge, if you have to try 10000 things before something works, the 10000 other things were not wasted, they were learning experiences and added to the knowledge of what doesn't work. Even if you never find something that works, you have given humanity the knowledge of one more thing that doesn't, so someone else can know not to repeat your mistakes. Research is never a complete waste. So while "beneficial" is a subset of "goodness" there are very few things that are good, but not in at least some small way beneficial to someone.

The answer to the original question asked in the first post is "Yes". True there exists politics, there also exists private thieves, gangsters, and murderers. That doesn't change good and bad, nor right from wrong. There seems to be two objections to what I've said. 1) "Investors are no better than cab drivers". My answer to that is yes, but so what? The world doesn't need more heroes, it just needs more people to go from doing net negative things to net positive. If you draw a line in the sand and put everything on one side that is a net positive and everything on the other side that is a net negative. Investors are on the net positive side with the cab drivers and landscapers, not on the net negative side with the con-artists, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, and politicians. 2) "Profits are good is too general a statement". Yes, which is why I qualified it with profiting without initiating violence against others. If you profit by lobbying the government to protect you from competitors or to protect you from being held liable to those you harm, then you are initiating violence to get your profits and are clearly on the "net negative" side of the line. This could be applied to shareholders as well, which is why there are companies which I won't invest in. I want to try to stay away from that line if I can. What about martial arts :( , MMA is bad? ;D Agree with you tho, but i think this issue is somewhat complicated and can't be wrapped up in one nice looking quote. OK how about: "Profiting without initiating violence against others who don't wish to have violence initiated against them". :) It is complicated, but not nearly as complicated as people want to think it is. There is nothing wrong with violence if it is wanted and consented to by all parties involved, such as MMA, boxing, assisted suicide, BSDM, etc. Anything goes between consenting adults.

I don't know, I'd need more information. Is buffett's barber donating $Billions to charity? Again, we all do what we can do. I don't think the question of who is doing more good is a very valuable thing to focus on. This isn't a pissing contest, we're all just trying to get by the best we can. Don't do evil, anything else goes, IMHO.

The answer to the original question asked in the first post is "Yes". True there exists politics, there also exists private thieves, gangsters, and murderers. That doesn't change good and bad, nor right from wrong. There seems to be two objections to what I've said. 1) "Investors are no better than cab drivers". My answer to that is yes, but so what? The world doesn't need more heroes, it just needs more people to go from doing net negative things to net positive. If you draw a line in the sand and put everything on one side that is a net positive and everything on the other side that is a net negative. Investors are on the net positive side with the cab drivers and landscapers, not on the net negative side with the con-artists, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, and politicians. 2) "Profits are good is too general a statement". Yes, which is why I qualified it with profiting without initiating violence against others. If you profit by lobbying the government to protect you from competitors or to protect you from being held liable to those you harm, then you are initiating violence to get your profits and are clearly on the "net negative" side of the line. This could be applied to shareholders as well, which is why there are companies which I won't invest in. I want to try to stay away from that line if I can.

I'd be interested in any book recommendations. If you read just one book make it: The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer This goes into how law might/could work in the absence of Political Authority a bit in the second half of the book, but the first half is probably the best explanation I've ever read (and I've read hundreds of such books) of why Political solutions to these problems haven't worked and can't work, and even if they did work are not moral by even the most liberal use of the term. Other good reads that go into this area (in order) are: The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, by David D. Friedman or Pre-Order the 2014 version Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters, by David D. Friedman The Market for Liberty, by Morris Tannehill also: (free ebook versions) For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray N. Rothbard also: (Free audiobook version) and (Free ebook versions) Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy), by Edward P. Stringham The Conscience of an Anarchist: Why It's Time to Say Good-Bye to the State and Build a Free Society, by Gary Chartier Other Books good books to read (and they are free): Everyday Anarchy: The Freedom of Now, by Stefan Monyneux Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future, by Stefan Monyneux Both available here in multiple formats: FreeDomainRadio.com/FreeBooks.aspx. A few of his other books are good as well. I highly recommend this book to the "Drug dealers are bad" types, if nothing else it will make you think about many types of people you previously dismissed as unquestionably bad in a different way: Defending the Undefendable, by Walter Block Also: ((Audio book version) Anything else by Walter Block is good as well: Author: Walter-Block

No one is saying profitable investors are heroes. Just that they do what they do and in some small way it is a net positive. There are 7+ billion people on the planet, how much value do you expect that you can personally add over and above everyone else? We all can't be outliers.

I'll try to answer some of the above without quoting every person who has replied. Ask yourself: Would the capital markets function if people did not try to buy undervalued securities and sell overvalued securities? This type of profit seeking is essential to the operation and efficiency of these markets. Then ask yourself what would society look like if the capital markets didn't exist? Someone above dismissed trading stocks as no more valuable than driving a cab, and it is true that trading a small amount of stock may not add much more value than driving a cab, but I'd argue that driving a cab is valuable. Getting people to where they wish to be is valuable and this is the reason the cab driver makes a profit doing so. The cab driver doesn't add as much value as a jumbo jet pilot does (when they land safely and their passengers survive), but that is the reason a cab driver doesn't make as much. You and I haven't created the value to society that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have, which is the reason we haven't profited to the extent that they have. I don't buy the heroin argument, most of the problems with the heroin trade are the result of its illegality. The only exception I'd make to my statement that if you make a profit you are benefiting society, is that it doesn't apply if you initiate violence against one or more people to do it. This would include things like theft, murder for hire, and lobbying the government. Someone mentioned poisoning people in the third world for fun and profit, but in a functioning market, devoid of government protectionism, and with a functioning tort system, such things would be far from profitable. Now for those educated in government schools who think that a tort system couldn't function without political authority and the aggressive government violence that it implies, that is too complicated a subject to get into on a message board. Whole books have been written on it and I'd be happy to give you the info you need to get started if it is a subject you are interested in. But on the topic of this thread, the answer is unequivocally Yes. Don't sell anything you do to peacefully make a profit in our society short. Whether you are a cab driver, a plumber, an engineer, or an investor, you are doing some good in your own way. All of those jobs, and many more, are necessary for society to function. When they cease to be necessary, such as cab drivers after automated cars are the norm, they will cease to be profitable.

If you are making a profit, then yes. In any market profits are the result of doing good. For a simple example, if you notice that oranges are cheap in Florida and expensive in Alaska, and you have a way to bring them to Alaska and profit, then you are doing good and being paid to do so. You aren't just doing good because you are providing people with oranges, but also by helping the market come to an equilibrium in pricing. By buying the oranges in FL you are helping to raise prices there and by selling them in Alaska you are helping to lower prices there. The same is true with the equity markets. When you find an undervalued stock and you buy it, you are helping to nudge the price higher (or at least to slow the decline). Conversely by selling an overvalued company you are helping nudge the price lower or at least slow the rise. Obviously the more money you can put into play the larger effect you will have on the price of the stock. Your return is your payment for helping to drive stock prices to their proper market value making the capital markets more efficient and useful. When you make money in a market you have done good for society, even when you can't figure out how. When you make money through politics or by taking advantage of government regulations, grants or monopolies, then you have profited from violence even if you haven't seen the violence.

Interesting. A non-hostile acquisition of a private company! A direct sales insurance company, like Geico for trucks. I wonder how much he paid.

And as we speak, 007 has infiltrated the lair with Kate Beckinsale at his side, he'll soon rescue all passengers seconds before the evil underworld is blown to bits...... Shhh! Don't spoil the ending.

There are only two obvious scenarios that make any sense. One is that a well funded terrorist group built a large submersible aircraft carrier large enough to land a jumbo jet. The pilot, who is a member of this group, landed on the carrier, the plane was brought below deck, then they submerged and carried it off to their secret lair. The other plausible scenario is, of course, aliens.

Is there a non-public way to quietly steal a Boeing 777 airliner and kidnap 239 people? I think publicity is a given.

Large Aircraft Disappearances and Searches Since 1948

+1. Wow! Thanks for posting. Given that it is written by an experienced pilot, it is the most credible "in the pilot's shoe" description of what likely happened. Will be validated when they find it in the Indian Ocean along this trajectory. I agree, but to give credit where credit is due, Palantir posted this already just yesterday a few messages up: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/missing-plane/msg162438/#msg162438

That would be a difficult thing to get right to allow you to takeoff and land at any airport in the world. There are many airports where the runway is over 3 ft in elevation. Denver International Airport is 5,430 ft. So if you could set it to over 5430ft to allow you to land in Denver, but that is pretty high in the air if you are flying to Boston. It would have to have GPS and a terrain elevation map of the world built into it so it would know how high above the ground it is. Of course automatic systems can have bugs and can fail for any number of reasons, so it wouldn't necessarily be more reliable than relying on human pilots to switch it on and off at the right times.

This is very odd. The Face Behind Bitcoin (newsweek.com) "You want to know about my amazing physicist brother?" says Arthur Nakamoto, Satoshi Nakamoto's youngest sibling, who works as director of quality assurance at Wavestream Corp., a maker of radio frequency amplifiers in San Dimas, Calif.... "My brother is an asshole. What you don't know about him is that he's worked on classified stuff. His life was a complete blank for a while. You're not going to be able to get to him. He'll deny everything. He'll never admit to starting Bitcoin." Alleged Bitcoin Inventor Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto: "My Prospects Harmed Because Of Newsweek's Article" "Mr. Nakamoto didn't mince words: "I did not create, invent or otherwise work on Bitcoin," he writes. "I unconditionally deny the Newsweek report. ... When Mr. Nakamoto told reporters that the story was incorrect in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press, Newsweek editor in chief Jim Impoco held firm. "We are absolutely standing by this," Impoco told the New York Times at the time. "It was an exhaustive investigation."

Maybe it was the NSA that needed the plane for its drug running operations.

I've always wondered this; To what extent is Putin (or any other person in a position of perceived power) acting of his own volition as opposed to taking action out of necessity to ensure their own survival? I think there is always a lot of both. Take Obama for example. I think he really was naive enough to think he could just be elected president, get into the Whitehouse and end the wars, let the patriot act expire, etc. I think eventually the reality hit him, or someone informed him, that if he actually tried such things he wouldn't be alive to finish his first term.

What do you mean by "functionally illiterate"? According to estimates by The National Institute for Literacy, roughly 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan -- 200,000 total -- are "functionally illiterate," meaning they have trouble with reading, speaking, writing and computational skills. Even more surprisingly, the Detroit Regional Workforce finds half of that illiterate population has obtained a high school degree. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-education_n_858307.html I suspect that UNDERSTATES the issue by quite a bit. I have a family member who worked as reading tutor in Detroit maybe 8-10 years ago. I also have friends/family who are/were deeply involved in public education in Detroit. I grew up in the city also...and still have family/friends/business there. This may be a topic for a different thread, but what is going on in Detroit is somewhat alarming... I find the whole Detroit thing fascinating. Whatever the reason(s) for it (large corrupt criminal government with social programs out of control, labor unions, shift to overseas manufacture of automobiles, all of the above and more) it is like watching an advanced civilization regress and vanish right in front of our eyes. If you've ever wondered what would happen to our cities if humans were to disappear suddenly from the Earth you can just sit back and watch youtube videos of certain sections of Detroit.