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 : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (21669)	9/19/2001 7:42:58 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24042

First, they announce the writedowns. Then, they backdate them. Now, they revise the (backdated) writedowns. And warn of more announcements to come. Why should investors trust any number they read about JDSU? All numbers seem changeable, even historical ones.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (21669)	9/19/2001 10:50:24 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

I agree 100% with everything you said. The part I am worried about is Part B in your statement: " However, in the long term, if the government spends too much and overshoots, then we'll have massive inflation. " History indicates is that there has never been a good time for Democrats to cut spending. In fact I cannot remember of a single instance where Democrats have cut net spending significantly. That includes what I cann " Republican Democrats . So when we come back from recession as a result of increased spending and the good times are in , the Democrats are going to say no and we'll be right back with inflation.This has happened several times in the past 30 years. This is why 30 year mortgage rates shot up immediately as soon as the word " increased Government spending came out ". The old Bank Money in the know can now smell that rat light years away, and are pulling the trigger and saying no, no more cheap lending to you, regardless of how low Greenie drops rates. Is gold going to go up next? TA

To: RetiredNow who wrote (21669)	9/21/2001 8:09:28 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

Government spending is bad for the Economy long term because money is not allocated through free market forces. It is coerced. So yes, some may benefit for a while. But ultimately this is money coming out of the consumer's pocket, to rebuild New York, the Airlines, fund the war. That money is added to sky high taxes, gas, health,home prices. The consumer is not a money printing Bank. There will be less money to buy big ticket items, luxuries, you name it. And if the consumer has no money to buy then business will make no profit. Companies will sit there profitless and so will your investment,until the problem is resolved. And yet there is no quick resolution in the horizon: Taxes, The War, Gas and Health are not only not coming down, they are going up. Is JDSU going to go to $3? A 40% loss from here? Buy at $3 for a quick trade and profit to 6? TA PS Reaganomics worked initially only because taxes and spending where down in 1983 - 1983. The deficits developed in 1987 because the Democtrats spent more than was available. The Democrats will do the same now. ========================================================== You said To:Tunica Albuginea who wrote (21667) From: mindmeld Wednesday, Sep 19, 2001 7:37 PM View Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21696 Jeez, now I have to disagree. Spending is exactly what we need. Please refer back to your econ 101 books. Aggregate demand equals consumer spending plus business spending plus government spending minus taxes returned to consumers, all of that adjusted by the multiplier effect. Notice in the above equation that spending is what stimulates the economy. So in the short term we need massive spending to pull us out of a recession. However, in the long term, if the government spends too much and overshoots, then we'll have massive inflation. Either way we'll have more debt and a budget deficit, which we'll have to work off again when the economy is strong. Remember Reaganomics? Spend like hell to get us out of a recession. It worked, but we racked up a shitload of debt. Maybe we can avoid the increased debt this time, but I doubt it.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (21669)	9/29/2001 10:42:02 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

WSJ. Letters to Editor: What the Economy Needs Now Sept 28, 2001 wsj.com Your Sept. 26 editorial "A War Economy" is correct as far as it goes about the need for marginal tax rate reductions, but the underlying fallacy of the alleged efficacy of stimulative fiscal policy needs to be emphasized and reiterated. Lord Keynes wrote in 1936 that the federal government could increase aggregate demand by initiating stimulative spending programs, thereby energizing a moribund economy. In theory, this government spending (on, say, infrastructure construction) would create jobs, increase personal incomes and consumption spending, and have a "multiplier effect" leading to further spending and growth. In the present time of decreased consumer confidence and reduced business investment, this seemingly is a perfect policy antidote. This central tenet of Keynesian theory went on to dominate the economics profession for the remainder of the 20th century, and became a powerful intellectual basis for government intervention in market economies. The only problem with this is that it has been discredited empirically and theoretically. Brilliant though he was, Keynes was in this instance guilty of the fallacy of composition: an increase in government spending must per force come from private, productive taxpayers, ultimately. Hence private spending and demand will ultimately be curtailed as resources are shifted to the public sector. And, as it turns out, empirical research has conclusively proven that the "marginal efficiency of capital" is higher in private sector investment and spending than in the public sphere. If this were not true, to use one simple anecdotal example, the former Soviet Union would have been an economic juggernaut. What is needed now in the U.S. economy are the marginal rate reductions' acceleration you mentioned, as well as a significant cut in the tax on capital formation. The war would most effectively be financed by a separate bond issue, not least so that our public solons are held to responsible habits with the public fisc. John L. Chapman Department of Economics University of Georgia Atlanta ========================================================== You said Message #21669 from mindmeld at Sep 19, 2001 7:37 PM Jeez, now I have to disagree. Spending is exactly what we need. Please refer back to your econ 101 books. Aggregate demand equals consumer spending plus business spending plus government spending minus taxes returned to consumers, all of that adjusted by the multiplier effect. Notice in the above equation that spending is what stimulates the economy. So in the short term we need massive spending to pull us out of a recession. However, in the long term, if the government spends too much and overshoots, then we'll have massive inflation. Either way we'll have more debt and a budget deficit, which we'll have to work off again when the economy is strong. Remember Reaganomics? Spend like hell to get us out of a recession. It worked, but we racked up a shitload of debt. Maybe we can avoid the increased debt this time, but I doubt it.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (21669)	9/29/2001 10:50:24 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

Part II: WSJ Letters:Federal Spending Can Hurt Market Sept 28, 2001 Burton G. Malkiel's otherwise superb analysis of the stock market in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack ("Don't Sell Out," editorial page, Sept. 26) could benefit from the warning in your editorial "A War Economy" the same day. Your editors expressed concern over the possibility that Congress will use the tragedy to engage in massive non-defense federal spending increases. In a study done with Lowell Gallaway for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, we demonstrate (on the basis of analysis of two decades of data) that not only do stock market averages track remarkably well with inflation levels/interest rates, but also with the size of government. When federal spending as a percent of total output grows, the stock market falls -- a lot. The rise in market averages in the five years after 1994 reflects in significant part the decline in federal spending as a percent of GDP, as the political environment temporarily turned against deficit-financed spending increases. Similarly, the pre-September 11 decline in equity prices partly reflected the anticipation that the decline in the relative size of government had stopped, given indications of a renewed Congressional spending spree in the past year or two. The adverse impact of government on equity prices is twofold. First, by increasing its command over resources, bigger government means squeezed profits arising from higher taxes (if tax financed), or higher interest rates and/or inflation (if debt financed). Second, in a very real sense, the private sector is on average, dollar for dollar, more productive than the public sector, as the former faces market discipline in its decisions while the government does not. Aggregate productivity falls when the government crowds out private activity. If Sept. 11 means massive increases in federal spending for illegitimate ("fiscal stimulus" via increased domestic spending) as well as legitimate (e.g., protection of human and physical capital assets) reasons, it will raise the risk premiums associated with private investment activity, dampening the market. The case for further tax cutting,advanced by some using Keynesian-style arguments on the need to stimulate consumer spending, is actually better advanced on the ground that tax reductions raise the political costs to members of Congress of engaging in a wholesale spending spree. Richard Vedder Distinguished Professor of Economics Ohio University Athens, Ohio