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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: getanewlife who wrote (9757)	12/1/2001 8:24:29 AM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Ge Ying Fang wrote<<The communists tried to have a controlled economy and also tried to change human nature. You know how that went. We have no respect for laws of nature and market, no respect for history and historic valuation, just because we could keeping printing and liquidating?! Well, we will in due time have ourselves liquidated!!!>> awesome! an excellent three sentences!! i am putting your post on my storage thread.PaxMax

To: getanewlife who wrote (9757)	12/1/2001 8:47:14 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 99280

The problem with this 'go to da moon' imagination, which was why the nasdaq went to 5000 and why we are no here, is the people do not have to buy these new economy 'products'. Once we move away from the mother nature, she will 'pull' us back. The communists tried to have a controlled economy and also tried to change human nature. You know how that went. We have no respect for laws of nature and market, no respect for history and historic valuation, just because we could keeping printing and liquidating?! Well, we will in due time have ourselves liquidated!!! Perfectly said.

To: getanewlife who wrote (9757)	12/1/2001 1:24:33 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Hi GYF, >"people do not have to buy these new economy 'products'" Quite true, and we can all live in caves and trade beads for raw meat and hides. But we'd rather not, so we won't. As far as "moving away from mother nature", yikes. I'm an environmentalist... But where I disagree with your assertion is that we humans are part of mother nature in what we do, how we evolve our civilization. Unless you believe, like the Taliban (sorry, it's an extreme example, I know) that we shouldn't use any intellectual property other than, say, pre-internet stuff, we're due for a continuing explosion in products and services, for these reasons: 1) There is a combinatorial explosion in each of us communicating w. each other. I agree this has been misunderstood by moon-beamers thinking silly things like pet food orders on a screen are worth a billion dollars. But, it's real in the sense of increasing demand for tech until we are all connected with, say, at least 2mbps in bandwidth w. less than 100ms latency. That will happen either by people paying more, or products/services coming down in price. It sounds Gilder-ish, I know, but there it is. I became convinced in college on an obsolete ARPANET system, and again in 1994 when a PERFECTLY exponential growth curve showed from 1973 to 1994 as a 100% annual increase. That's a "Mother Nature" phenomenon if there ever was one. We want to be connected. 2) Human activity includes intellectual property, for which we'll pay in effort or money, and this will continue to become more elaborate, and generate more revenues... unless some kind of action is taken to somehow stop people from being creative. 3) Business efficiency increases are real. Information is irreversible. In the American society (not in the Taliban), productive efficiencies compound each other in all fields, not just high tech, because we're fanatics about invention. What are the limits? Do you think we have some kind of limits to invention, to our appetites for music, art, literature, business and social activities, technical and science developments? If you can postulate some limits on our activities, I'd like to hear it. The only limits I can see are those such as proposed by Bill Joy, in his "The Future Doesn't Need Us" article, which I respect, but argued with him about on his conclusions. He's also an apocalyptic like yourself, and fears increasing tech produce global vulnerability to self-destruction by smaller and smaller groups, who can summon greater and greater weapons. I disagreed with the conclusion, because we can't stop such progress, and must accelerate defensive solutions as offensive tech emerges. Here's hoping, hey?