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 (129389)	7/31/2001 7:25:40 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>You have yet to show why chain weighted measurements are less accurate.<< yes, i have. you may not agree, though. one more time... 1. imho, the market decides value much better than alan greenspan (with his personal biases and agendas - known or not). 2. chained dollars can't improve anybody's lifestyle b/c they aren't REAL. 3. the numbers produced by chain weighted dollars are absurd. 0.5% of the economy doubling productivity growth? 9% productivity growth in late 1999? do you have any idea how freakin' big that would be IF true (it wasn't)? 4. if computers created more revenue and/or reduced labor hours then the effects are ALREADY included in the then current gdp calculation and don't need to be artificially added later. i can tell you one way i don't want productivity measured. i don't want a biased govt official deciding the "value" of everything in the economy. i want free markets to do that (the then current system wasn't perfect, but it is better than arbitrarily adding in greenspin's idea of "value." the issue IS what alan.com felt about productivity measurement. if he thought it was good, he wouldn't have changed it, right? if he didn't change it then i don't take issue him. in fact, there would have been no productivity support for a "new economy." you keep saying i'm confused when, in fact, you just don't understand, or refuse to understand. btw, understanding is not the same as agreeing. you are free to agree that alan.com should add whatever value he wants to the numerator of the productivity equation. hey, ice cream is valued twice as much in summer as winter so let's add a couple chained dollars for each unit sold to reflect this added "value." habit, causality backwards? hello? remember how i was confused about gdp being in the productivity calculation instead of piece meal units? ;-) i get more of the same every note you post to me on this issue. btw, it is irrational to ask, after the fact, whether the old system was better (not from your perspective, but from greenspan's). it is dumber than doornails to change a system and then say "prove the old system was better." it shows a level of ignorance to the core (or, more probably, an agenda that clouds intellectually honest thought). the real issue is for greenspan to prove that creating dollars out of thin air is better BEFORE he changed the system. i understand the concept. he's trying to measure ethereal, non-measurable "value" based on his boys' subjective opinion of what it should be instead of cold, hard measurable cash b/c he felt productivity was understated given his view of the contribution of computers. why don't we have ceo's report chained weighted dollars for all the "value" they "perceive" they gave the market place instead of the cold cash they earned? absurd? i can only laugh it sounds so dumb. -lol- bezos would love it, though, b/c he'd finally report a profit. a HUGE profit -lol- you see, gst, i understand the opposition's point of view. i just really disagree with it (and have since i learned about it approximately 3 years ago) b/c i knew the tanstaafl monster kicks *ss and takes name. you can't manipulate reality away by changing the measurement, imho. greenspan is a little old to learn this lesson. or, maybe he knew it, and sacrificed the masses so a few could increase their wealth and/or standing.