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: Alomex who wrote (129527)	8/2/2001 1:23:37 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

alomex, that article is owned by mis quarterly. of course, they have no vested self interest to turn an economic number (albeit, not perfect) into some meld of vague mish mash opinion that makes them look better and grows their industry and wealth. no way! -lol- the equation is simple. dollar output / hours worked. computers didn't increase this ratio much. period. b/c of this, the mis qtly folks, along with others possessing various agendas, want to measure something other than dollars and sense. while this might make intellectual sense, it is entirely impractical. if prices fall too much, too fast (computers), isn't that b/c resources are used unproductively (regardless of unit output productivity)? should drastic increases in unit productivity drive revenues lower and companies out of business? this isn't theory, this is a grave reality for the dram mfrs. is that economic productivity - the destroying of companies through unit productivity enhancements? sure, anecdotal evidence indicates some huge level of economic productivity increase. however, to stop there is simple minded, imho. if the results don't pan out, and they didn't, investigate why. why didn't all the displaced workers generate revenue for some other company (especially given recent low unemployment)? were people displaced or were they put in other non revenue producing positions? did new non revenue enhancing work spring up to offset some computer productivity enhancements? did oversupply conditions due to unit productivity increases reduce revenues (unproductive economic use of resources, regardless of unit productivity increases). what happened? nobody cares b/c the mis group gets to tout how great they are and boost their clout and salaries and the govt officials get to manipulate the public. until reality bites.

To: Alomex who wrote (129527)	8/2/2001 1:49:22 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Alomex: The article you cite, aside from offering no evidence whatsoever of a positive link between computers and productivity, is seven years old and predates the internet's commercial growth period. At best, it deals with IT spending in an era of mainframe technology. What is striking about this debate is the complete absence of empirical support for the positive impact that you say is so obvious. The critics of the productivity paradox just say "oh ya, well prove there is no improvement" without offering any proof that there is an improvement -- if there is an improvement shouldn't it be possible to measure and report? I would not agree that this tired old article debunks anything.