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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (55464)	12/21/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: DWB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Wow... $500 for a single share of QCOM... I can't say that when I bought my first share back in Oct. 98 around $50 (now $25, soon to be $6ish) that I could have told you it would be at the equivalent of $1000 by Christmas of '99, in fact, if I did say that, you could call me an outright liar. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... unending thanks to Gregg Powers for helping me see the light, and giving me the insight to make the best investment decision I'm ever likely to make. Oh, and by the way.. the lucky boxers with the dollar signs are working their magic again today, my wife now knows they need to be washed every night for the forseeable future. DWB Q10K/Y2K+5

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (55464)	12/21/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: waverider	Respond to of 152472

Well OK...there is a connection... but this constant hummmmm about it is really crazy. Gotta give Al credit though. He has done a wonderful job managing the scene. Castle man <H>

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (55464)	12/21/1999 4:12:00 PM
From: mauser96	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

OTOT--If there was a sudden shortage of oil, it would cause the price of oil to go up, resulting in a price increase also in those things made using oil. People would have to pay more for these things, leaving them less money to pay for other things. This reduced demand would in turn cause the price of these other things to fall. In other words generalized inflation would not result, unless the money supply was increased. That's just what happened in the US in the 1970's. The politicians liked it because it enabled them to blame somebody else. Today enough people are on to this trick that politicians probably would have trouble escaping the blame, at least in developed countries. Unemployment would be a factor acting across most of the goods and services available, reducing demand, but then again the money employers saved could in turn be spent, increasing demand. Inflation isn't an accident, it is a creation of government looking to make the public think they can get something for nothing. Low inflation rates are one of the key ingredients for this secular bull market.