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: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (129885)	8/10/2001 8:25:02 AM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<<I do not know what you have tried. >> pretty basic things like asking a question through a co's website about a product of their's I had just bought, no repsonse. In another case, asking a question via emial, and getting back a canned 3-page listing of the co's products, nothing to do with the question I asked. re productuvity I think the recent layoffs and demise of so many dotcoms, many of which really produced nothing yet employed many people anyway, led to improved productivity figures.

To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (129885)	8/10/2001 10:02:46 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>In 1999 the London Stock Exchange fined ABN Amro Equities £250,000 and Morgan Stanley Securities £100,000 for "misconduct" after the scheme was uncovered there. >\| Last Updated: August 10 2001 21:20GMT ABN Amro, the Dutch bank, was censured and fined $200,000 by US securities regulators on Friday for its role in a landmark stock manipulation case originally uncovered by officials at the London Stock Exchange. The charges date back to 1998 when a senior trading executive at ABN Amro in New York allegedly entered into an understanding with a portfolio manager at a Boston firm to manipulate shares of five European stocks. The shares included British Biotech, Volkswagen and Renault.

To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (129885)	8/11/2001 1:41:19 AM
From: schrodingers_cat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I agree that tech has increased productivity by a lot, I just think that much of the impact is difficult for economists to measure. Say a computer model of fuel combustion together with computer aided design software allows a car company to improve engine design to increase the fuel efficiency of their engines and also meet demanding new emissions standards. Would this productivity improvement show up in the statistics as being due to computers? If the new engine was made and sold for the same price as an old one would any productivity increase be detected at all? I think the solution to the puzzle of why computer driven productivity improvment is hard to detect, is found in the short-comings of economic statistics