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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (124126)	1/3/2001 4:45:44 PM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, Re: As for GM and the other US car makers are concerned, fewer talented people are going into that business and their lack of success is clearly correlated. GM has long been run by bean counters instead of car designers, engineers, or even marketers. I have to disagree. Look at how much better today's car are comparing with say 10 years ago, fuel efficiency, safety, reliability and you name it. gary

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (124126)	1/3/2001 5:36:06 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, RE: I know I am out of my elements discussing economics with the likes of you There are many that could very persuasively argue that an education in economics puts me at a decided disadvantage in discussing economics. That said, one clarification: As for GM and the other US car makers are concerned, fewer talented people are going into that business and their lack of success is clearly correlated. GM has long been run by bean counters instead of car designers, engineers, or even marketers. (let that be a warning for Intel). I didn't intend to make a comment of the relative success, or lack thereof, of GM. My point was that car sales is a good coincident indicator. When things aren't going well, fewer cars are sold. It has been a very long time since car sales have slowed to this degree. In all of the other 'fake' recessions (e.g. the Asian crisis) car sales didn't miss a beat.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (124126)	1/4/2001 8:30:40 AM
From: Joseph Pareti	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

>Our economy is fundamentally strong. exactly, and yet the irrational exuberance syndrome can put it in jeopardy. the dot coms experience has demonstrated 2 things : (i) what you just said, on the plus side, and (ii) how gullable the public is: i mentioned many times wall street being turned into a Ponzi scheme under the patronage of influential manipulators. The US economy is fundamentally strong also because those who create value in it (i.e. those who do a different job than SSB, ML, and Meeker) have gone through hardship and know how to handle it, fully aware there is no parachute on their back. In contrast, Euroland, as long as it remains dominated by the "deutsche gewerkshaften" is doomed, and I wouldn't give a s***t about the euro rise, knowing fully well it's the classic dead cat bounce. And yet being fundamentally strong does not imply invulnerable. I would guess the lesson to learn from the bear market is that one should distance himself from those who sell smoke, even if they are "worth" $15M p.a. One should learn that spending in excess of your "cash generated by operations" (for an employee this is their salary) is generally a bad thing to do regardless of the culture where one lives. One should learn to spend less time watching the charts (this is true for myself as well) and more time doing real work and real development.