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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (174166)	4/18/2003 9:51:54 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

More OT, RE: Bush and the economy The initial poor market performance, from March 2000 through the end of the year, really can't be put at Bush's feet. He hadn't been elected (please no Florida jokes here) and it really wasn't certain at all that he would be elected. 2001 arguably can be blamed either on a follow through of the bubble bursting, which was pre Bush, or a discounting of Bush policies. If you look at 2002, though, the problems are clearly Bush's. In fact, unlike past president's, who in a lot of ways were victims of circumstance, Bush was directly responsible for a lot of the market and economic problems of 2002. The market peaked in March 2002, and started downward when Bush enacted the steel tariffs which increased steel prices by a third, which really crippled a lot of industries. And when the market was attempting to come back in May, the largest farm subsidy in history was passed, which exacerbated those problems. Those two policies probably helped a lot of Bush supporters get elected in Nov 2002 (which I believe was the intent of those policies) but in the process they created a headwind which the already weak market and economy could not overcome.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (174166)	4/18/2003 11:06:34 AM
From: rkral	Respond to of 186894

OT ... Sorry, Charles. Perhaps my post was too subtle. Regards, Ron

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (174166)	4/19/2003 6:05:30 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 186894

edit- after I wrote this post (essentially saying that Bush didn't start the recession or mkt decline, but certainly is responsible for the continuation of the malaise and the economy's inability to recover) ... I see a few here posted the exact same thing in subsequent posts. I will just add that discussions wrt "the war" (iraq) and how it was Bush's fault, really don't tell the entire story. The fact that the US launched a pre-emptive strike (against the UN sec policy) on the basis of some false claims (WMDs), and the fact that the US continues to essentially "pick fights" with non-aggressive countries like Syria, is an economic handicap that will take this economy a long time to overcome. We already have a boycott of US goods by most of Europe, fueling a renaissance of some European firms who were on a different trajectory a year ago (SAP and Nokia for example). And of course, the additional terrorism these policies will likely inspire.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (174166)	4/22/2003 11:08:27 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

From L'INQS Sun gives support to Opteron Surprise announcements of our time By Staff at the Newsdesk: Tuesday 22 April 2003, 10:46 THE NUMBER OF times that we've had to write a story about Sun supporting Opteron despite what everyone else in the industry is saying is beginning to chafe a little. Pop on over to News.com and there's yet another story that confirms what we have been saying all along. Sun is supporting Opteron. There's no big hoopla from Sun about it, the company has simply announced that Solaris, Java and Sun ONE work very nicely on the Opteron, thank you very much. But it doesn't take much reading between the lines to get the real gist of the story. Sun has been evaluating the Opteron, we all know that, and it has no love of Intel. It's also a company full of very smart folk. It doesn't take much gumption to figure out that the Opteron, which will be available in one, two and four way systems before the end of June, is going somewhere. Sun has decided that it's only going to support it as a 32bit system for now but we wonder how long it will hold onto that position. Perhaps the most telling part of the article on News.com is right at the very end. A company spokesman is quoted as saying that the company is continuing to evaluate demand for x86-64. µ L'INQS