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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (129381)	7/31/2001 2:37:16 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>So far as I can see, you blame Greenspan for the "new economy bs" because you argue that he changed the way we measure gdp in a way which is a less accurate approximation for actual output.<< correct. however, he didn't turn it into a less accurate approximation. he goosed it up by 100%+. it will NEVER be lower than it otherwise would have b/c alan.com only ADDS dollars, he doesn't decrease them. >>That might or might not be the case.<< oh, it IS the case - and i'm not using clinton's dictionary ;-) my gripe is simple. BEFORE you add imaginary dollars into gdp (and screw up an economic measure aand make it economic + greenspan's opinion), you ought to have a good reason. IF computers increased productivity (gdp/worker hour) then it would have shown up in 1. higher gdp or 2. lower worker hours or 3. both. the fact is it didn't - at least not much. just like far too many managers and corporate leaders, greenspin changed the formula RATHER THAN FIND OUT WHY HIS EXPECTED RESULTS DID NOT SHOW UP IN THE PRODUCTIVITY NUMBERS. prove thaat the numbers are hidden before making wholesale changes that could lead to aan economic wreck. prove it. he CAN'T. he has his OPINION. that's it. eg, profits are a b*, so let's exclude some business expenses and report those numbers - pro forma profits - and pretend they really matter more than gaap profits. greenspan thinks the same way. now, if greenbean thinks that productivity isn't a good measure, then fine. don't screw it up, though. don't add economic output that doesn't exist in the market! leave it alone. create a different measure and allow folks to assimilate both measures. but to change the meaning midstream and yell "new economy" is a joke. a very bad joke. how come greenbean decides how much value computers have that don't show up as revenue (gdp)? why can't you decide? why not hj? the whole thing wreaks of manipulation. you may disagree with my view and that is fine. so does alan.com ;-) but if you want me to believe productivity in this nation grew 9% in late 1999, i don't smoke lefty luckies. it is absurd data points like this that ought to make one pause and question. 0.5% of the economy contributed fully 50-60% of gdp growth. hmmmmmmmm... something is obviously askew. let the chips fall wjhere they may... except when you don't like where they fall. then, you change their location. ;-) the tanstaafl monster is going to beat alan.com and this nation silly.