Re: virus: Rich and Poor

Rhonda Chapman (
Fri, 28 May 1999 17:04:26 -0700

Friday, May 28, 1999 2:46 AM Tim Rhodes wrote:

>If the stocks of "green" companies, for instance, are bought in greater
>proportion than their cost/earnings ratio might explain. Or if there was a
>national tax on purchases over a set amount, $10,000 for instance (with a
>provision for exemption in the case of a first home or medical expenses).
[etc., etc., etc.]

You made a number of interesting points here. Unfortunately, I still hear you telling me that you want me to return to a lower standard of living. I am hard pressed to get excited about that idea (been there, done that, didn't like it).

> the market economy will do what is best for its own propagation before it
will ever >consider doing what is best for us.

Maybe what needs to be changed is the society that is driving the market. Rather than attempting to legislate a market to change the society.

>And as a further aside: I wonder if people will realize the scary
>part of what's going on with their 401k's and mutual funds.

I hadn't realized or considered any of this. I do understand what you are saying and I see the point of it (although it seemed that you over generalized, indicating that all successful companies are hurting their employees). Regardless, I am not going to retire comfortably by investing in non-profitable companies.

No matter how charitable and good your ideas may be, you still have to "sell" them. Not only that, you are probably going to have to sell them to the people you are denigrating. You are unlikely to succeed if you insist on pushing ideas that are anti to those peoples best interest.

I would love to see a win-win on this issue. However, your win keeps looking like my loss.