SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (835)8/13/1999 6:33:00 PM
From: John Biddle  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13582
 
That sure is a convoluted interpretation of my theory. It's the opposite of what anyone could logically conclude.

I don't think so. If you'll humor me a moment to explain your theory to you <VBG>, I'll try to make myself clear at least, even if you still don't agree. And this will be my last message on this (though you of course are due a response) to keep from getting Ramseyed.

Looking back on it now, it might seem reasonable to say that CDMA was a long term smart decision, but it was risky and by the time it was beginning to be proven viable, GSM was entrenched and standardized across Europe. At that time the only reasonable view would have been that CDMA only detracted from the value of the existing standard (GSM) and the money (again, risky at the time) shouldn't be invested in CDMA.

What I like about capitalism is that it's the owner of the capital who gets to decide what to do with it, not govt. bureaucrats. Over time, money flows to strong hands because that's how one accumulates, by being right. Bureaucrats accumulate by force and there are really no negative consequences to being wrong. They get their power from position, not from economic value added.

It seems like a good theory because you can assume that government bureaucrats, if we just picked good ones, could make the right decisions. They can't. All of history tells us that they can't.



To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (835)8/13/1999 8:14:00 PM
From: JRH  Respond to of 13582
 
Art,

Beautiful response.

JRH