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

To: AC Flyer who wrote (20708)	7/3/2002 11:14:37 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

AC - ...Right now we have solid growth, high productivity and low inflation. ... I just wanted to note that the reality of these three items is highly controversial. In addition, none of them, even if true, necessarily results in corporate profits. Regards, Don

To: AC Flyer who wrote (20708)	7/3/2002 2:10:08 PM
From: marek_wojna	Respond to of 74559

<<Finally, 2002 is very different from 1929 or 1970, both times of seriously declining economic fundamentals. Right now we have solid growth, high productivity and low inflation. The stock market will not ignore these fundamentals indefinitely.>> Hmm, 2001, 2002, and the next several years will be indeed very different to anything from the past.

To: AC Flyer who wrote (20708)	7/3/2002 4:03:59 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

LOL, new laptop seems to have unignored you... oh well. <Just a display of (very) thinly veiled male egos. It's not pretty.> Well clearly YOU don't debate... as you say. I wouldn't impose you're actions on others however. It's clear it's YOU who have been ignoring well reasoned folks putting forward the bear case as I stated. <Third, my investment approach is entirely market independent. Only fools believe they can consistently predict market direction. The key is to buy value (see Ben Graham, Warren Buffett) and invest long term.> LOL, well haven't we changed our tune! ROFLMAO Now we're not stupid for being bearish [like Buffet is], just because we've been short [and making a boat load btw]! BTW, I haven't seen ANYONE claim to predict the market consistantly.... it's just been obvious THIS TIME! Nice wiggling around! Sadly, Buffet has said he's been buying puts and shorting as well... happier now? <<Finally, 2002 is very different from 1929 or 1970, both times of seriously declining economic fundamentals. Right now we have solid growth, high productivity and low inflation. The stock market will not ignore these fundamentals indefinitely. >> Ooops, a fool by your own defenition suddenly! Calling the market. Sadly, your underlying assumptions are still incorrect... 'solid growth'... yea, right... high productivity... uhhh, like the 30's? Low inflation... uhh, yea. DAK

To: AC Flyer who wrote (20708)	7/3/2002 7:28:18 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi ACF Mike, <<Right now we have solid growth, high productivity and low inflation>> To quote Bill Bonner, 'Amazon is a river of no returns, and Denial is not a river in Egypt'. Right now, growth is big government led, frivolous consumption supported, debt fueled, and devoid of profit, which is bad for now, and devoid of productive investment, which is horrible for the future, deserving a P/E that is perhaps 60-70% down from current levels. Productivity is meaningless in the context of production paucity, high paying jobs disappearance, domestic and long-term capital formation vaporization. Inflation? we shall see. The inflation in housing is plenty high already, and in some essential services as well. Previously, paper assets. <<The stock market will not ignore these fundamentals indefinitely>> ... you may be right, and the market will weigh these fundamentals against the balance sheet, dollar trend, taxation momentum, big government wind, etc, and then decide, in a surging mass, in panic, to either buy or sell. <<2002 is very different from 1929 or 1970>> ... we agree on this statement. I think we have a good chance of doing as well as 1929, and a better probability of doing less well than 1970. Chugs, Jay

To: AC Flyer who wrote (20708)	7/4/2002 3:59:58 PM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

on >>...high productivity and ...<< PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH. STUPID All in all, the new paradigm economy has miserably failed by all accounts. Since there is little left to boast about, the reported stellar productivity growth has become the favorite topic in the economic discussion. Mr. Greenspan and numerous economists keep emphasizing that at this is the single most important factor affecting the economy's performance. It strikes us in the first place that the stellar productivity growth that has been reported for the past several years has apparently failed to exert any of the great, beneficial effects generally ascribed to it. Why should it do wonders in coming years? Second, we have to point out that the high esteem of today's American economists for productivity growth is unique. In onspicuous contrast, there is very little about it in the writings of the old economists. Even Joseph Schumpeter, in his large opus about business cycles, never mentions it. Why this silence? The old economists were, of course, fully ware of the importance of productivity growth. But regarding it as the dependent variable of capital accumulation, they focused on the key conditions fostering and allowing for a high rate of capital accumulation: savings, profits and investment. In the end, in fact, it is all about capital investment. It is the critical mass in the process of economic growth that generates all the things that make for rising wealth and living standards. Capital investment creates demand, employment, income, profits and tangible wealth while the buildings, plants and equipment are produced. And with their installment, these capital goods create growing supply, productivity, employment, incomes and profits that, by the way, also repay the debts. Strictly speaking, productivity growth is an abstract quantity that, by itself, creates neither demand nor supply and neither income nor profits. (from The Richebächer letter july 2002) dj PS: I'm not (just;) needling Mike, I think this has some substance. But again, maybe I'm too much under the influence of my Austrian neighbours (Heinz & Co g)