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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2725)	11/4/2000 4:50:09 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 57684

didn't give any details because it speaks for itself. If you really believe that GE didn't have to ramp up production by 5 or 10 times when the country was undergoing electrification, or that the car companies didn't have similar situations when motorcars were being adopted I don't know what I could say to convince you. Why are you arguing these points? You seem very confused to me. The 50s were a tremendous decade for stocks and GE was a great investment, so if you want to point out that we have seen great investments before, and GE was one of them, I think we can all agree on that. The question is whether Ariba or C1 is another GE, which would represent a 20 to 50 bagger. Please elucidate on why or why not you believe Ariba is another GE. Or to open this up, are there ANY naz stocks that you think could be another GE in the making.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2725)	11/5/2000 7:05:10 PM
From: Tom Kearney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57684

Hey Mama, look at this: ge.com From 1912 to 1932, GE's revenues went from $89M to $147M - not even a double - and no match for JDSU. From 1901 to 1912 the stock price was down, and from 1912 to 1922 flat. I'm still looking for complete growth numbers and will post when I get them. And I will get them. Lizzie, I understand your concerns that this is irrelevant. I'm paying attention to it because of this: I think the whole notion of historic valuations, one of the biggest clubs used against tech stocks, is bogus. The best assertion of this is James Glassman's book 'Dow 36,000' where he shows why the concept of a historic PE ratio range that all stocks must eventually adjust to, is wrong. Regards to all, Tom p.s. Very interesting reading in the Economist this week re: Napster and Groove - two more reasons to buy net infrastructure.