>You apparently believe it has merit?
Glenn, the only thing I believe is if this Wal-Mart deal is true it might save Amzn and then again it might not!
Btw
There's a hell of a lot more going on than the survival of Amazon.com. Amzn was the symptom of the new economy, but it won't be the cure!
Oh! wasn't this the Harmond hype?
>were widely viewed as having limitless growth potential that justified sky-high prices for their stocks--even though many of the companies weren't yet profitable
>By WALTER HAMILTON, Times Staff Writer
Jim,
Good article. Depressing a bit but reality is there.
As with today's glee about the Internet, 1929 was full of optimism about a supposedly new economic era, said Richard Sylla, a professor of financial history at New York University.
Productivity was rising, and investors were excited about such advances as widespread use of cars and electricity, and the introduction of talking movies, Sylla said.
"The '20s and the '90s are quite similar in what happened and in how people viewed it at the time," Sylla said.
But, as with the Internet bubble, there was little regard in the 1920s for the practical applications of the era's innovations in business and society, Harvard Business School's Koehn said. Like so many dot-com companies today, loads of businesses failed in the early 1900s, even though the era's technological improvements were profound.
I am not sure that the perceived differences in the technology improvements between the 1920s and the 1990s is a good comparison. It would seem that there are practical application dof the technology from the 1990s compared to that of the 1020s. That is only a gut feel or maybe wishful thinking.
Glenn |
