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: Boplicity who wrote (71490)	5/4/2000 8:14:00 PM
From: Jill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I agree w/ you Greg. And limtex. Sigh.

To: Boplicity who wrote (71490)	5/4/2000 8:42:00 PM
From: Hobie1Kenobe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Come on folks.....let's keep things in perspective.... from Briefing.com 10:27 ET ****** Productivity : This isn't a stock, but it's important for all stocks. The trend in productivity growth is at the heart of the current new/old economy debate. If productivity growth accelerates, economic growth (and thus corporate profit growth) can remain strong without prompting higher inflation. Today's Q1 productivity report is calling the accelerating trend into question, as growth slowed to 2.4% from its 3.6% trend of the prior 12 month period. Many new economy skeptics -- and there are plenty -- are jumping on this number as evidence that the productivity boom is over. Can you say deja vu? Rewind to August 1999 and the release of the Q2 1999 productivity data. The preliminary release for that quarter revealed growth of just 1.3% and a large 3.8% jump in unit labor costs. At that time, we heard volumes from stubbornly old (economy) economists about how productivity growth was not accelerating, potential growth was not rising, and inflation would not remain contained. We noted at the time that productivity numbers are extremely volatile on a quarter to quarter basis, and that it was stupid to declare a trend on the basis of one number. As it turned out, productivity growth boomed in the succeeding two quarters by 5.0% and 6.9% in Q3 and Q4, bringing the year/year pace to a new late-business cycle peak. Now, we have a number of 2.4% that keeps the year/year pace at a very strong 3.5%, and the old economy school that previously thought trend productivity growth was 1% calls this a bad number. Please spare us. The productivity boom continues and will reach a new and higher plane as B2B technologies bring Internet efficiencies to the business-to-business realm. Finally, a little reminder about what matters. The market was frightened by a worse than expected Employment Cost number last week, but that measure is not the key to inflation. The key is unit labor costs -- how much a business has to pay to produce each unit of output. Wage and benefit costs can rise, but if productivity grows faster, unit labor cost growth will decelerate. That is what we have seen over the past year. And if unit labor cost growth is less than the inflation rate, then inflationary pressures stemming from the labor market are waning, not waxing. That is the case now, with year/year unit labor costs growing at a meager 0.7% vs total inflation of over 3% and core inflation of about 2%. In short, businesses are currently raising prices more than their unit labor costs are rising, and they can therefore either reduce the rate of price increases (lower inflation) or allow profit margins to rise. In short, today's productivity report doesn't change the bullish productivity and inflation view anymore than the Q2 1999 report did. Many economists will argue otherwise, but they will be the same economists who were wrong last year, and in 1998, and in 1997, and so on. - Greg Jones, Briefing.com

To: Boplicity who wrote (71490)	5/4/2000 11:15:00 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Hello Gregory Mullineaux, I agree with you and limtex. I believe when inflation finally shows up, most of it will be caused by the FED raising the interest rates. This is causing companies to slowly raise their prices thereby giving the FED the inflation they want. I'm having less faith in Greenspam everyday. I really wish the congress would drill Greenspam on the economy and force the FED to stick to their mandate not trying to control the stock market. If Greenspam wants the consumer to stop spending, then he should tell congress to pass a law giving him complete authority to raise all prices by 2000%. This would instantly make 90% of the nation poor and he would then have his slow economy. If he doesn't understand it then leave it alone. The worst thing to do is change something you don't understand, 99% of the time things come out worst. Thank You JK