SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (16474)3/7/2002 1:49:49 PM
From: AC Flyer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
>>Did you know that living standards for Americans doubled during the 1940's<<

Come on, mike, give us a little credit. The 1940s followed the 1930s, which featured falling productivity and falling living standards, as I recall. As I've always said, the secret of success is starting from a low baseline. :)

Here's an interesting little discourse on productivity and living standards from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which explores both sides of the issue:

>>A more fundamental question, however, is whether the U.S. economy can sustain a high pace of trend economic growth over many years, even decades. Many economists think so, but there are skeptics. One skeptic is Robert Gordon, a professor of economics at Northwestern University. Gordon argues that much of the recent acceleration in U.S. productivity is due to cyclical forces, suggesting that productivity growth will fall as economic activity slows to a more modest pace. Moreover, he contends that the computer, the Internet and other high-tech products of the late 20th century pale in comparison with the great inventions of the late 19th century in terms of their impact on productivity and long-run standard of living. Electricity, the internal combustion engine, and significant advances in chemicals, medicine and communication were much more important for sustained economic development, Gordon contends, than the transistor, the microchip or the Internet.

Thus far, the short period since 1996 favors those who believe we have a "new economy." Average labor productivity growth in the United States has increased at an average rate of 2.8 percent since 1996. Productivity is now growing at about the same rate as it did during the halcyon productivity boom of 1919 to 1973, which scholars attribute to the industrial revolution of the late 19th century. Although interrupted by a major economic depression and a world war, the great boom of the mid-20th century produced a quadrupling in U.S. standard of living. By contrast, productivity grew only half as fast between 1974 and 1995, at 1.4 percent per year. Were that rate to persist for 50 years, standard of living would only double. Obviously we hope that productivity will continue to grow at the pace of 1996-2000, but to be on par with the great booms of the past, our current rate of productivity growth will have to continue for decades more. It's simply too soon to tell whether the productivity surge of the last five years will prove to be a boom or a boomlet.
<<
stls.frb.org



To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (16474)3/7/2002 2:15:44 PM
From: AC Flyer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Of course, here's what I really think:

>>Today Alan Greenspan was on TV again and claimed that we are now in a "new economy" thanks to the computer..............you'll see that this notion is one of the biggest jokes foisted on the American public.--tradermike_1999, 2002<<

I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application.--Heinrich Rudolf Hertz

X-rays will prove a hoax.--William Thompson, Lord Kelvin, president of England's Royal Society

It doesn't matter what he does, he will never amount to anything.--Albert Einstein's teacher to his father, 1895.

In less than 25 years the motor-car will be obsolete.-- Sir Philip Gibbs, 1928.

I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.--Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1958, attributed.

Nor are computers going to get much faster.--Dr. Arthur L. Samuel, New Scientist, 1964.

I'm going to live to be one hundred.--Health writer Jerome Rodale, 1971. He died the next day at age 51.

Other technologies, like electronic mail, worked as promised but failed to overcome human habits. ‘E-mail' was... readily embraced by techie types, [but] it was shunned by secretaries and others because it proved too difficult to use.--Time Magazine, 1991.

The Internet... will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.--Bob Metcalfe, InfoWorld, 1995.

And my personal favorite:
Nothing of importance happened today.--July 4, 1776 diary entry of King George III of England.



To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (16474)3/7/2002 2:37:17 PM
From: rolatzi  Respond to of 74559
 
My personal favorite is:
I can't see where anyone would need more than 64KBytes of Random Access Memory (RAM).
(Bill Gates after having marketed MS DOS

Ro)



To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (16474)3/8/2002 1:18:39 AM
From: LLCF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
I don't think your point can be told enough times... I fail to see why everyone is carried away with this 'productivity' thing. Productivity increased during the depression too... so what??

DAK