SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (58494)1/17/2001 7:19:07 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
he was worrying about the wrong thing...

Jeffrey Bezos

Age: 37
Occupation: Chief executive officer, Amazon.com Inc., Internet retailing giant in Seattle

Stressful Situation: When the company was branded "Amazon.toast." In 1997, George Colony, the CEO of influential technology analysis firm Forrester Research, made the dig as book retailer Barnes & Noble Inc. got serious about its Internet strategy. Until then, Amazon had enjoyed almost two years without any serious competition. Suddenly a wave of doomsayers and media were reporting that Amazon was about to get squashed by a bricks-and-mortar behemoth.

"Everybody's mom read these articles and called their loved ones and said, 'Are you okay?'" says Mr. Bezos. "Everybody in the company was stressed out by this." The view that Amazon was going to be crushed came to seem logical even to Amazon's employees.


How He Coped: Like other executives, Mr. Bezos says action of any kind, even symbolic, helps him deal in times of crisis. (So does junk food such as hamburgers.) "Anytime I feel stress is when I'm worrying about something and I haven't done anything about it," he says. In this case, he called an all-hands meeting of Amazon's 120 employees to discuss the predictions of imminent demise. He says he told workers to "wake up every morning with your sheets drenched" but to worry about things in their control, such as customers -- not competitors. Mr. Bezos's trademark belly-laugh and a touch of base humor helped lighten his and others' moods. "I said let's be clear I meant sweat," he says.
interactive.wsj.com



To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (58494)1/17/2001 8:06:38 AM
From: AllansAlias  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
Sorry, that post is too long to read and it's complicated. Besides, isn't it just about fundamentals? Anyway, I am too busy getting my refinancing approved so i can go long chip stocks. -g



To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (58494)1/17/2001 9:30:11 AM
From: James F. Hopkins  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
Heinz; I saved that post but the problem with it,
is that not many people will ever take the time
to read it. :-(
Jim



To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (58494)1/17/2001 10:48:08 AM
From: Moominoid  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
If inflation was really 10% then GDP must be falling at 4% a year. Depression territory. Strange that unemployment is only 4%. Or maybe that's fake too?



To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (58494)1/17/2001 11:28:58 AM
From: flatsville  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 436258
 
Why we all bemoan this--

First, it is being used to loot the American population. More than 100 million Americans are covered by cost-of-living adjustments in their wage contracts, and programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc., which are supposed to protect them against inflation. EIR has calculated that BLS lying about the rate of inflation, in which the QAM plays a great role, has this year stolen between $278 and $328 billion from these Americans.

and certainly this--

But the BLS has still other weapons to "reduce" inflation. In the 1990s, the Senate Finance Committee established the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index, which was staffed by people whose aim was to reduce the inflation rate further, through various shams and ruses. The Commission issued its final report on Dec. 4, 1996, calling for a series of changes which would lower the CPI by 1.1%. In January 1999, the BLS instituted one of these changes, called the "consumer substitution" change. This assumes that if prices rise, the consumer will strive to make a constant level of expenditures for a certain category of goods. So, if the price of one item goes up, the consumer will substitute another item, which is cheaper. This may not be at all what happens in reality; but, the BLS made an assumption, which pre-programs in that the consumer would not be paying more for certain categories of goods. A spokesman for the BLS told EIR on Sept. 11, 2000, that this assumption alone will permanently take 0.2% per year off the CPI rate.

Any ideas as to what prompted the change? Why the Senate Finance Committee (with the Rep majority I might add) back in 1996 entertained and then engaged in further "jerking with" the nos?

It was the fear of this scenario--

Again, this is not a new problem; in fact, it is older than I am (I’m 23). Our delay in correcting this problem has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in the past, and threatens the economic solvency of our government in the future. The Boskin report tells us that, if left uncorrected, the current bias in the CPI would contribute about $148 billion to the deficit in 2006. Remarkably, in that year alone, the cost of the error would be so big that it would surpass all but three federal programs in size: Social Security, health care and defense. In that year, the mistake would cost us more than all of our spending on education, welfare and international affairs, combined. Between now and 2008, an overstated CPI would contribute more than a trillion dollars to the national debt.

Imagine how foolish today’s Americans will seem to future generations if we sit idle. They will look at us in dismay and wonder how we had the gall to pass on to them needlessly another trillion dollars in debt. Looking at these numbers it is easy to see why people in my generation are anxious. Just over 30% of all federal spending is indexed to the CPI. Therefore, not adjusting the CPI is another step toward an unsustainable buildup of our debt, toward a disaster for our entitlement programs and toward a continuation of a serious generational disparity in this nation.


thirdmil.org

Now I'm not saying jerking with CPI was justified or not.

Just a little history and a reminder as what made it look like such a "good idea" at the time.

And if anyone thinks the next administration is going to "undo" this "fraud" they are sadly mistaken.



To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (58494)1/17/2001 11:55:44 AM
From: GraceZ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
the hedonic adjustment lie in detail

In 1991-2 (or so) I bought a 386/16, 4 mbs ram with a 14" monitor, 100mb hard drive, 16 color graphics card, floppy and win 3.0 for $1300.

In 2000 I bought PIII 600 w/128mbs ram, 30 Gig hard drive, CD writer, CD player, floppy, sound, speakers, NIC card, graphics card capable of 32 bit color at 1024 and 120mhz with a 17" multisynch monitor for $750.

Please tell me how is hedonic pricing distorting the massive inflation in this picture?

My husband and I paid approximately $200 each more in gas this last year......but the vacation we paid $3200 for last year is now on sale for $1800.

I bought a used car for $12,500 this last year. The same price I paid for a new one in 1989. Only the one I bought this year has anti-lock breaks, fuel injection, heavier suspension, side impact panels, keyless entry and a safety record that is 3 times better than that 1989 car I had (still have as a third car). Neither need a tuneup until 100,000 miles (as opposed to those nice big heavy American cars the author remembers as superior)

I'm one of those totally anal retentive people that tracks our family budget down to the dollar. I haven't raised the amount to put into the joint account (the account we use to pay all living and entertainment expenses) in 6 years before that it was almost 8 years that this amount stayed the same. The only reason I raised it six years ago was because we moved into a house that cost twice as much as our old one. I only raised the amount we put in the account by 12% because the interest rates were so low on the new loan (and we got a shorter term). The quality of our living has risen considerably (as well as our net worth) in those six years with no increase in total spending. This is only possible because while some things are going up (medical costs, gas), others are falling through the floor. And like the article points out, I make a switch to a cheaper item (the used car as opposed to the new one). The insurance company raised my rates and I got a new company at a lower rate.....and I got more insurance. I flew to California on a non-stop round trip flight for less than I spent in 1978 on World Airways (the cheapest flight there was back then). I still start my workers out at $10/hour which I did ten years ago.....which is $3/hour better than the other labs in town! I haven't raised my print prices in ten years and every time my suppliers raise their prices they've rolled them back with discounts within weeks.

Where is all this inflation that the government is hiding?

Of course, I don't live in California.