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.

Pastimes : All Clowns Must Be Destroyed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (39070)	6/12/2000 12:31:00 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

<Try again and try speaking in english. You're just typing in pop economics-speak> The best part is I think he is saying he believes EMH in which case none of any of this matters anyway because the market discounts all this whether anyone understands it or not... therefore it's actually futile for him to even be on the thread since the market is constantly discounting everything for him. DAK

To: Les H who wrote (39070)	6/12/2000 10:05:00 AM
From: BGR	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42523

Huh!? You assume that the benefit space is limited and static - in which case, of course, as long as net dollars spent on consumption remain stable there may be no productivity growth. Not true at all. Net dollars spent on geriatric health care, for example, may remain the same (I am not stating that to be the case, but let's assume it is for the sake of the argument), but the benefits - a more healthy and longer life - are forever expanding. Hence, to capture the increased benefits per unit cost, hedonic pricing needs to be applied. Yours is typical Skeeter Bug thought in action, that computers have no purpose beyond word processing and that's that.