Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (13145)	7/30/1999 9:50:00 AM
From: re3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

to all on the thread...(if anyone cares, that is !) i sold my @home, sold my aol... my only us long is 10 cheap call options on boeing, the september 50 calls i think we are in for 'very bad things' and very very soon... good luck to you all ike

To: ahhaha who wrote (13145)	7/30/1999 2:32:00 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

You say you know little about economics, so how could you have any conviction about an accurate assessment of productivity? In so far as an economy is a dynamic system one can make broad generalizations about the nature of systems. The point of my comment is that the efficiency of a company trend upward in response to competition when competition threatens the survival of the business and the business has a "will" to continue. This is not a rational process so to anticipate the end of increasing productivity is impossible. In regards to labor markets I believe businesses can still produce greater outputs per employee in the future if they are forced to. Individuals are not efficient; only minor increases in productivity will come form individuals working harder or smarter. In an environment of open competition an increase in the local cost of labor will force businesses to compensate by increasing efficiencies in other areas. Obviously I am assuming the competitive forces necessary to hold down costs must come from somewhere in the world. This is where the falling dollar intercedes and acts as a catalyst to market meltdown. Greenspan has fallen into "new era" thinking. The reason is that he and the rest of them never had a clue about what caused inflation during the '70s. If you do I'd like to hear it.

To: ahhaha who wrote (13145)	7/30/1999 9:02:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

ahhaha, gdp is an illusion. it isn't growing in real dollars. almost all the growth is in "chained" dollars. what is a chained dollar? it ain't a real dollar, that is for sure. all computer revs rose $8 billion in 1998 over 1997. so, that $8 billion went to an increased gdp, right? yup. but so did another $150 billion. why? accounting gimmick. the excuse is that computers are much more powerful so they return more to the economy even if the price is lower. forget the fact that these faster computers aren't adding to the bottom line of the folks that buy them... as expressed by the flat gdp excluding this voodoodoo economics... take away the voodoodoo dollars and gdp is flat. so much for productivity increases...