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 : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (17845)	1/15/2003 4:26:52 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 19079

Yup, the lack of capital investment is a bad thing. To that I'll agree. But I disagree that by saying there are no benefits to a reduction the work force. That is, to have people out of work is a huge problem...BUT, scaling back the work force allows for 2 benefits - trimming the fat, which tends to grow in good times, and focussing on core businesses. Short term, I agree that it's tough. But long term, the kind of scaling back that we are seeing is hugely beneficial. I wasn't putting words in your mouth when I was making a comment about quality of manufacturing versus services. To have everyone working in Starbucks or giving foot massages is hardly a "good" for the economy. It's also unrealistic to stretch a concept to the extreme like that. Doing that is misdirection. Making a point like that is similar to the magician saying "don't look at what's really happening, because you have to consider what's going on over here" when nothing is really going on over there. What I was saying is that comparative advantage allows certain jobs to flow to where they are best provided, or most needed. Is that caricature? It seems to me that your negativity is based primarily on the current account deficit. Well, it's likely we'd have that even if we had manufacturing jobs as opposed to service jobs. Our demand for "stuff" has greatly exceeded our ability to produce it. To that end, I'd agree that the current account is a problem. But hardly intractable and hardly as "on the edge" as many think. Consider that Japan was in a much different situation 15 years ago with a huge CA surplus. Being in that good a situation doesn't seem to have mattered for them. When people choose a doom and gloom perspective, they usually focus on a few choice items. I've heard the CA argument ever since 1982, when we first became a debtor nation. I agree it can be very painful at some point, if not managed properly. But I have yet to see any indication of mismanagement. This, of course, would not include external shocks to the system such as a war or other geopolitical fallout. In that case, I'd say all bets are off. But in maintaining the status quo, I don't see reasons to worry. Nor do I see reasons to jump up and down and have a party.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (17845)	1/15/2003 4:35:59 PM
From: Hardly B. Solipsist	Respond to of 19079

Well, you're right, I didn't understand what you were talking about. Apparently I wasn't alone, though, so it might not be due entirely my lack of facility with English. What confused me was that while you appear to be primarily concerned about macroeconomic issues (which I worry about, too), this thread is about ORCL (and occasionally about other related software companies), and I fail to see how these companies are responsible for our trade policies. If a company sells software that lets XYX Corp. do the same work with fewer employees, on a micro level that is productivity growth. This might not help the balance of trade, but it does indicate that there is some value in the software.