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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (32426)	5/30/2000 1:01:00 AM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

If our economy is so tenuous as to be thrown into recession by a 1/4pt rate error by the the same Fed that oversaw it's entire expansion to date, I'd think that maybe there's more to the story than "Alan Greenspan and his band of mischief makers". Of course, from that fellow's perspective, it's probably not easy to find work these days as an economist in journalism. -JCJ

To: QwikSand who wrote (32426)	5/30/2000 9:34:00 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Dear QS: Here I go again, your ever faithful WATCHDOG for meaningless statements. OK, first off, Surprise, I generally agree with the thrust of the article, HOWEVER, there are at least 2 major errors in it IMHO. 1. "transaction money -- narrowly defined to include domestic currency and plain-vanilla checking accounts that don't pay interest -- has hardly changed since 1997" I am on the Board of Directors of a Bank, I have been on the Board of TWO banks in the past 5 years. I say this to indicate I know SOMETHING about banking. Here is the FACTS. Banking has modernized tremendously and has adapted to the changing market conditions (ie incredible competition from entities not formerly thought of as banking facilities). OK one of the changes has been the evolving of the "plain vanila checking accts". It has been superceded by a variety of plans, generally based upon some type of "SWEEP ACCOUNT" wherein excess funds daily are swept into interest bearing accounts NOT demand deposits. I believe it is THAT type of thing that causes the above statement to be FALSE. If you dont believe me just take a look at the cash balances of most corporations, dont they seem to be MUCH HIGHER these days? It is also likely that if AG is right about the so called "Wealth effect" individuals probably have higher cash balances too. It just isnt in "plain vanilla checking", people are now more sophisticated then that. 2."more basic level, investors must remember that productivity gains are largely concentrated in manufacturing, where the number of production workers hasn't changed significantly since the 1940s, while the job gains have been in service sectors where productivity improvements have been few and far between" This statement is not only NONSENSABLE (hey my post, my word), but INCORRECT. While it is true most job gains are in the service level that does NOT imply service hasnt gained incredible productivity. Think of the internet and all that it brings, unless their sole definition of service is flipping hamburgers they totally ignore the large gains in productivity, for instance just in banking think of all the things you can now do without ever seeing a human being. As to the manufacturing industry, true great productivity gains and little or no growth in factory workers. But, that is really due to the changing face of American business. In Thomas Jeffersons day we were an Agrarian economy (Great Britian was the industrial), shortly after WWII WE were the KING of Industry (other nations were rebuilding their destroyed industries). Now, through globalization USA keeps the CREAM of the crop jobs and farms out to lesser countries the drudge work, we are moving to the TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN--SERVICE. So, whats the beef? AGAIN, IMHO Barrons is CRYING WOLF to SELL THEIR REALLY LOUSY PAPER. JDN