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

To: q_long who wrote (11223)	5/31/2000 11:35:00 PM
From: manny t	Respond to of 13582

We have been told by many Analysts that QCOM's price is fair without China,so we can only go up from here. Manny T.

To: q_long who wrote (11223)	6/1/2000 5:09:00 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 13582

Don't necessarily blame China. Chinese official may have thought analysts understood more than they did. Analysts may have misunderstood or, worse, been in GSM camp and passed FUD along to Reuters. What is suspect is that Reuters did not name the analysts? Remember, this was not reporting something the journalist was told directly; it reported DOUBLE hearsary: Analysts (unnamed) report that an unidentified Unicom official said ...." Very poor reporting, in the first place.

To: q_long who wrote (11223)	6/1/2000 9:31:00 AM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

q long, re; 'This is a preview of coming attractions for what type of trading partner China is.' Permit a different perspective if you will. The Western perspective that China is full of corrupt business practices, two-faced press releases for negotiating purposes, skull duggery, repressive political practices and just general all-around nastiness leads to a fairly obvious conclusion: untrustworthy dudes not UP to the ethical standards of developed countries like the US and Europe. Take a gander at the economic and political development of the US during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. We may now view ourselves as the paragon of virtue and civility [and I have some trouble with that one] but even a cursory look backward will demonstrate that we had more than a few 'rough edges' in our development. China has been invaded by both Western and Eastern powers, both of which used their superior military technology to have their way with her. We are talking big time, ruthless economic and human exploitation on a scale that beggars the imagination. The Japanese occupation, alone, is enough to give you a lifetime of nightmares. But no worries: the US and Europe got their licks in as well. In summary, I believe it is naive to expect China to enter the world stage in 2000 and expect her to behave as if she just got out of finishing school. And I think it is ludicrous to expect that she will not have very long memories of her treatment in dealings with foreign nations. The combination is likely to produce behavior that falls below our current standards, and will continue to do so for quite some while. I repeat: the US was not a country of choir boys beginning with our landing at Plymouth Rock. Frankly, I think somebody at the Forbidden Palace is going to be asking somebody else in 2004: "Hey, was it YOUR idea to get us into WTO, and who the hell thought PNTR was such a terrific brainstorm?" China is about to be hit with an onslaught of ideas, capital, new cultural practices, the internet, wireless, new business and ethical standards, and world scrutiny on an unprecedented scale. Everybody and their brother will be setting up shop in Beijing, and with each "invasion", China's political leaders' grasp on the populace will loosen. Be careful what you wish for, because. . . Sum and substance: I think we should cut these boys a little slack. And in all events, don't be surprised when they get their nose out of joint when they get lectured on the nature of moral conduct by their putative ethical superiors. For some nutty reason, the Chinese have a very tough time with that one. SM