++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <insert witty tagline here> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
> If you buy a security, the prices rises, you sell the security, you make > money. Actually, you did. You provided the RISK CAPITAL for operations. You "bought" a itsy bitsy part of a company and risked gaining or losing on the part of the c ompany. This is risky. However, doing so does not inflate the cost of toilet paper at WalMart. > You have not added anything of value to the world. You did not? You bought ownership someone else wished to sell, keeping cash liquidity available for the company. Irrespective of the > nature of the company behind the security. Even if you are investing in a > company that rescues slave labor children from sweatshops, if it is traded > on an open exchange, the money you make or lost on the trade does not > really > help the company. It doesn't? Someone, somewhere, risked ownership buy buying. THAT money DID help the company. They've then transferred ownership to you, and you held it. It may become more or less valuable as time goes by. But in no case does your speculation on the future value of ownership inflate consumer's costs. Not even of the commodities that company may produce, if it does. > > The original point was revolving around adding value. > > A mutual fund that includes in its portfolio a stock of a car company > making > electrical vehicles does not make that investment any more of a value > added > proposition than investing in the stock of a company that sets up payday > loan stores. The securities trading of a companies stock does little for > a > company past the initial IPO. Unless you are an IPO buyer, all securities > are essentially tulip bulbs in holland in the 1637. > > But getting back to the tangent that has nothing to do with WISPA or 3.65, > muddyfrog said that he does not believe in investments where there is no > added value. I proffered that precludes securities trading. With the > exception of IPOs and angel investment (I have done and continue to do > both) > securities trading adds no value and is only a form of regulated gambling. > I have no problem with it. But one could extrapolate that muddyfrog > logically should. You misread or twisted what I said. I said that purchasing an essential commodity, be it a house or a barrell of oil, or even wheat, for the sole purposes of inflating its price, for no added value, is unethical. I added to that list - building a business based upon premise or hype, for the sole purpose, not of providing services and long term value to consumers, but to resell at an inflated price, as no different and just as unethical. How you twist this to say that investing in ownership of companies stocks or bonds is the same thing is beyond my ability to comprehend. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
