When words die because of overuse or misuse, they can provide an important view into what we feel and think. When I hear someone of advanced years, say something is "cool," a harsh wrong note is struck. At some point, certain words must be dispatched for sanity's sake. Otherwise, one's whole individual demeanor becomes pathetic. Moving on can be tough, but one must. Language moves on too.
When I see politicians — Barack Obama is simply the latest — spouting the joys of "investment" in education, health care etc., I feel that "investment" is the latest candidate for euthanasia. It must die.
Ponder this: investing is putting your money in a financial instrument and getting your money back, plus some sort of return or profit. If I buy a stock, it appreciates (hopefully) and I sell it, get my money back, and a profit on top of that. Bonds do it differently, but the result is the same (again, hopefully). I'll forgo the list of investments like real estate, art, gold, baseball cards etc., because the concept is rather obvious. However now, politicians of all stripes extol the virtues of "investment". You'd think after the Internet bubble, this term would have been ditched. Enron, World Com, Global Crossing should have damaged this one, but words die slowly.
We interrupt this discourse for a disclosure announcement.
Yes, I once did own Enron. No, I didn't lose everything. I lost 10 percent. The thing that saved me was something I read in this book, The Battle for Investment Survival, by Gerald Loeb. It's called the ever-liquid account. I won't explain it here because if you are interested, I want you to read the book and learn. What's so special about this book? I could say Barton Biggs loves it, but then I'd have to admit I'm just using his name cause I like the sound of it (like something from Dickens). The real reason is, this book lays out exactly what we do when we invest. We are speculating. Our money may vanish in a flash. This is risk. Like the ocean, speculation holds no mercy in her. You adapt to her, ride her or suffer the consequences.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanne Huspek
Good points.
2 - Cindy
Cool.
Let's get rid of investing too.
3 - Ma ® k
I dunno, Cindy. Crap shoot or not, aggregating resources for production is socially necessary at whatever level.
That the author complains that folks don't restrict themselves to his preferred word use is an interesting side show.
4 - Cindy
Mark,
Crap shoot or not, aggregating resources for production is socially necessary at whatever level.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain?
I was responding to the idea of profit. Do you think we need profit?
(Also, I wanted to say 'cool'.)
:-)
5 - Cindy
I think I see. (maybe) I am suggesting that if investing means making a profit on what you put in, then we don't need investing. We still need to pool resources? Is that what you are saying?
6 - Ma ® k
That's what I said: 'investment' and 'profit' aren't necessarily related.
7 - Clavos
Do you think we need profit?
Without profit, you have no incentive for investment.
Without investment, you have no production.
Without production, you have no:
Food
Clothing
Shelter
etc., etc.
8 - Cindy
Clav,
Without profit, you have no incentive for investment.
Can you explain why you believe that?
9 - Ma ® k
.......Clavos, how do you profit if you gain the whole world but sacrifice your soul? There are potential incentives beyond the monetary aren't there?
10 - Clavos
Sure, Cindy.
I, who am an investor, do so only to make money. Otherwise, why would I subject my savings to risk if there were no possibility of a payoff?
I should think that would be obvious?
11 - Cindy
Clav,
So, then more accurately.
Without profit, you have no incentive for investment...in a Capitalist model.
But, this model isn't either the only one or the one used the longest throughout history. Economic systems have changed throughout time in response to changes in societies.
What makes Capitalism some special model that exists outside the rules that applied to anything that went before. In other words, why speak of it as if it is ordained by the laws of the universe, as if this idea of investment linked to profit in a Capitalist form are all that could or exist? Like we are discussing gravity.
12 - Cindy
correction: "...are all that could or [ever could] exist?"
13 - Cindy
(sigh) nevermind, you know what I meant anyway.
14 - Clavos
Look, Cindy,
Economic systems have changed throughout time in response to changes in societies.
True. But, in order for someone to be motivated to "invest" their money in a venture, they have to have an expectation of a return. Trade, in any system, is based on "I have something you want; you have something I want -- let's trade."
Historically, when such "trade" became ubiquitous, mankind invented a medium of exchange to facilitate the trade, and to quantify the value of that which was being traded -- in a word: money (in one form or another). A return to a pure barter-based economy would paralyze the world of today to an unsustainable degree.
In the case of investment of funds, the "something I want" for the investor is more funds.
I'm not saying Capitalism is "special," but it is the system we have at present.
However, even under a different model (or economic system), if I have no expectation of some kind of remuneration, why would I risk my funds?
15 - Cindy
"...equity, or fair and just outcomes; solidarity, or caring and mutual respect among all people; diversity of outcomes which would benefit everyone; participatory self-management, or having a say in decisions to the extent that one is affected by their outcomes; efficiency, or not wasting resources; and environmental sustainability, which requires leaving behind stocks of each kind of natural capital as large as those we enjoy today."
Some people have suggested that those are the criteria against which any economic system ought to be measured. That sounds close enough to me.
Those are human values. If we cannot live by human values, then I don't really care how we destroy ourselves.
Roger, at some time, after seeing the horror of poverty in the Philippines, said something to the effect that it doesn't matter if the whole human race is wiped out rather than accept such things without doing something about it. (something close to that sentiment)
If people don't care about a quality of life that includes the whole human race, then maybe they should destroy themselves and get it over with as quickly as they can.
If I had to live at the cost of being a Nazi, I'd rather not live. If people think that they can continue to live the way they do, because their government or their church says it's okay, then as far as I am concerned, I really don't care if the human race is history altogether. Good riddance.
16 - Cindy
Let some bacteria or other flourish. Maybe they'll turn into creatures that have something with brains and hearts better than humans were capable of having.
17 - Cindy
Sorry Clav,
Not an appropriate response to you. I'll try again, when I am able, to reply to you, instead of to the other people I've talked to today.
18 - Mr. Dock Ellis
My piece was about words that pols use to sell their ideas. They try to use words that seem soothing and trustworthy. You're supposed to feel pleased and important because they're tossing words at you that investment bankers use, like you're some bigshot. In fact, these words cover for purposes that have little to do with their true meaning. Can these words be used anyway? Sure, However, because only one small part of a whole conforms to the meaning, this is a distortion isn't it.
For example, Adolf Hitler used to say he was "liberating" many of the countries he conquered. Because there were some minority in Czechoslovakia or Norway or wherever who welcomed him, did that make his claim true? He cleverly used the Sudetens or Quisling or whoever to justify his aggression. Mix in the smooth Nazi propaganda machine and any move could be justified.
An opposing word embrace is very a powerful propaganda tool if done right. Claim the opposite of what you're doing. If executed correctly, critics sound shrill and simplistic. Also, like chess, you know exactly what the critics will say in response and you have a convincing answer already waiting for their obvious attacks.
19 - Cindy
My piece was about words that pols use to sell their ideas. They try to use words that seem soothing and trustworthy. You're supposed to feel pleased and important because they're tossing words at you that investment bankers use, like you're some bigshot.
How do you think that we get so that we are subject to ridiculous influences like what someone says as opposed to what they mean? And why is it that no one seems to care much how or why this happens?
20 - roger nowosielski
Are you doing OK? You weren't on any threads yesterday.
21 - roger nowosielski
Nice try, Mr. Ellis but no go. I believe the term had uses outside of finance; and when used in finance, it acquired a specific/restricted meaning.
I understand your sentiment, of course. But we can invest in a whole bunch of things which have nothing to do with making money: in a project we're doing, in physical health, any number of things. And there isn't any expectation of financial gain - only of some kind of reward, tangible or less tangible. (In fact, I believe that the term "vest/ed" is the primary one - i.e., having a vested interest in something - and that "to invest" is a derivative; but since I don't have my OED on me, I can't be certain.)
So I don't believe the word will die, although I understand you or other people being leery using it. Of course, one never knows which way the language will go, since it's always changing. We shall see, I guess.
22 - Aetius Romulous
Americans are label crazy - they invest much more than simple communication in words and phrases. Others might chime in, but I have found it a unique part of the American character.
So ya, I get it. Bush was fond of "freedom" - he pounded that puppy so badly it no longer has any meaning in America at all, a tower of Babel all of its own.
Navigating the English blog system without running aground on one of these labels is tough sledding LOL.
23 - roger nowosielski
You are right there. And in the process, they're bastardizing the English language.
24 - Ruvy
Dock,
I just finished reading your article and the comments attached.
So, you want politicians to let another bullshit hustling euphemism to die? Is that what this is really all about?
Israeli politicians are no better than American ones when it comes to dreaming up bullshit hustling euphemisms. Or should I say they are no worse? Barak called the rout of Israeli soldiers (first you announce the plan and then you plan the plan) from south Lebanon in 2000 a strategic withdrawal for peace. Sharon called kicking 10,000 Jews out of their homes "disengagement" from the Arabs. We're now fully disengaged from the bastards - except for the rockets they send to hit S'derot and Ashkelon of course.... That same stinkin' SOB, Sharon, who deserves to rot like a vegetable in a hospitable room, called kicking 250,000 of us out of our homes "convergence" - does this mean that all quarter million of us are going to converge on one spot to grab and fight over the few crumbs the government will toss our way if they succeed?
Getting politicians to relinquish their euphemisms is like getting a whore to stop trolling for tricks or like getting a tiger cub out of the paws of its mother - a very hard task indeed. Quitting smoking mighty be easier. Dock, as the Arabs say, you are like a woman who wants toasted ice!
25 - Cindy
#20 - Hiya Roger,
Yep, I'm okay. Just got engaged in too many 'down' things and people. I am practicing my juggling. Gotta remember to use more goods than bads.
Thanks for asking. :-)