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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (77374)	3/9/2000 1:03:00 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, if you took the time to investigate my claims of bogus economic stats you would understand. The methods of computation are not a secret the Commerce Dept explains hedonic pricing and chain weighted GDP look for yourself. What happens is the headline number is announced and Wall St seizes upon the numbers as proof positive that there is a productivity miracle. Go ahead here is your chance to torpedo the foolish bears with hard factual data. Do some research if you do not believe the bears. What you call investment is financial speculation and capital consumption- recipe fer TL & EV ho ho ho. you love to tell people that you think they are wrong here is your chance investigate my claims show the thread that i am misinformed and will will go back to my cave!-g- mike

To: BGR who wrote (77374)	3/9/2000 1:23:00 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR - [[I know that you believe any data that contradicts your bias is manufactured, but productivity growth in recent years have been tremendous. Productivity growth invariably has a positive effect on consumption w/o causing inflation, that's the whole point. Since you believe that inflation figures are also manufactured, I know what your response is going to be...]] REPORTED productivity growth may be tremendous, but no valid conclusions can be drawn from that datum. Even assuming no attempts to FIX the numbers, all economic measurements attempt to assign dollar amounts to economic activity. This is futile as the basis of all economic activity boils down to individual exchanges of goods and services of lower subjective valuation for those of higher subjective valuation. Real advances in productivity in any functional economy are the result of human ingenuity and expended effort, but this unending process is only captured in part by ANY measurement effort, especially any that must be based on a fiat dollar. As far the measured productivity growth goes, this is inherent in any period where there is a shortage in the supply of desired labor and a strong final product demand. The longer times needed to acquire and replace labor will naturally result in higher output relative to labor cost as long there is still some slack to be taken up. The fact that the measured productivity numbers show growth may be no more meaningful than taking the average height of all cabdrivers passing Times Square in a given 24 hour period. [[...Savings is down, but investment is up, which means that while the bankers are getting the boot, the companies still have access to capital. What is bad about that?]] Investment itself is not meaningful without knowing what returns will result. Just the fact of high investment levels should tend to make one believe that above normal amounts of that investment total will earn low or negative returns. This will, of course, lead to shortages of capital and investment desire in the next cycle. Regards, Don

To: BGR who wrote (77374)	3/9/2000 1:53:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

bgr, gdp growth is no longer an economic measure. it is a mix of economic and technical measures - apples and oranges blended together, if you will. economic / technical gdp growth of 4-6% is equal to about 2-3% of straight economic gdp growth. decisions used to be made on the economic measure. now they are made on the economic / technical measure - with no distinction in the not MAJOR difference in calculation. it is important to know the difference. if you sell 100 pii 300s one year for $100k and sell 100 pii 750s the next for $100k AND the marginal economic gdp growth was 0% from pii 300 to piii 750s THEN the economic productivity measure says you didn't grow gdp at all. The technical productivity measure may be up 100%. the economic measure says, so what, you didn't improve the economy one iota. the irony is that any marginal gdp growth is captured in increased revenues in companies that purchase computers. if it doesn't then the economic benefits of computers don't exist on a macro level. the answer? measure technical growth, mix it in with economic growth to boost the number by 100% or so and sell it as economic growth. computers do, undoubtedly, make certain jobs more efficient. however, reducing cost ISN'T macro economic growth. it is taking money from the worker pool and adding it to the owner pool. net, net, NO macro economic effect has occurred, all else being equal. conclusion: 1. the economic impact of computers can be measured very easily by monitoring traditional ECONOMIC growth. 2. the marginal economic impact of faster computers is already taken into 100% account using the economic measures. companies that buy computers either generate more revenue or they don't have a positive macro economic impact. 3. the powers that be didn't like the results, postulated the results MUST be wrong based upon their anecdotal experience and vested self interest (not necessarily in that order!) and changed the measure to represent growth in technology in addition to economic growth. the growth in technology portion has exactly 0 economic impact b/c that has already been properly measured in the economic measure. mike and i agree the best way to measure gdp growth is to use economic measures to gauge a metric that is advertised as an economic number. if not, why not add a multiplier for the number tissue rectangles in roll of toilet paper? increasing that number has EXACTLY the same macro economic impact as the technology measurement of - NONE.