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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: macavity who wrote (6727)	9/4/2002 9:29:00 PM
From: Davy Crockett	Respond to of 33421

hmmm.... interesting <<the quickest way to end this sort of defaltion (IMO) is to raise rates to kill the weak companies>> Well that is one way to extinguish the debt! I think it would do much more than that... & at any rate, the credit crunch is already happening Regards, Peter

To: macavity who wrote (6727)	9/5/2002 6:57:19 AM
From: Louis V. Lambrecht	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

mac - before saying that the CRB is rising, pull up a monthly chart. At 225, CRB will touch a line of lower highs. FWIW

To: macavity who wrote (6727)	9/5/2002 10:20:01 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

After a bubble you get deflation as there is too much capacity. I've always pretty much felt the concept of "too much capacity" is often misrepresented. Afterall, some could say that excessive profits were made by deliberately limiting the availability of a product or service and artificially propping up the price beyond its useful or productive value (broadband for the home) limiting demand since customers can't justify the expense. Thus, prices SHOULD decline, but aren't because of monopolization of the service being provided. In other cases, it can be argued that too much money was spent building the "highway" without sufficient time dedicated to making the equivalent of a "Model T" for the telecommunications industry (providing the vehicle for making mass communications afforable and useful to the common consumer). We can imagine what the result would be if the nation had embarked upon building the Interstate system solely as "toll basis", but only a small segment of society possess the skills, or the money, to make use of it. Thus, it can be argued that, just like the telephone or highway system, the overall telecommunications sector should be treated as a public good, in which private market control restricts economic benefit. Deflation may be bad for corporations with poor business structures, but it's NECESSARY for a technology or product to become sufficiently ubiquitous that the average consumer can justify spending money on it. And btw, by killing the weak companies, you create monopolization and limit price competition. And that can often cost the overall economy even more. I personally believe there is a public interest in maintaining inexpensive communications, just as there is in maintaining low fuel prices. Those services/products influence the cost of everything else in the economy. Hawk