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 : MARKET INDEX TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - MITA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dvdw© who wrote (17085)	5/6/2003 12:39:04 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19219

fair enough on looking for a good investment ... you have to live in the world as it is -- not the way it should be. Got no problem with buying a stock that is going to benefit from government largesse, if you think it is going to be a winner. Strip out my irritation and let me say this (more clearly, I hope): The military transfer of technology is NOT good for business. It is not an efficent way to invent technology for private application. To the extent that the government locks up sources of funding (read - the real scarce resources -- not $s) that would otherwise go to the private sector -- it delays technology development that would be best suited to meet the needs of market participants. It's bad on a number of grounds. 1) it's anti-competitive -- government picks the winners 2) the technology flows from "central planning" not market preferences -- want a larger example of failure -- look to Japan 3) bad ideas are not weeded out quickly -- as they might be in the market environment Now your examples >>OLED's, GPS's, SDR, Composites, all these emergent technologies were kept growing by funding from military applications, each has coincidentally been adapted by civilian applications at the same time, and this was exactly my point. It used to be one or the other. Now these advances are being applied with a minimum or no lag time between DOD and commercial ramp up. << you seem to imply that these items -- which have found private application would not have otherwise been developed to the extent that they have, but how do you know that?? You can't replay history without such military investment. >>and is in fact a root contributor to the underlying strength in the economy, and the subsequent capital rotations being played out under the guise of this bear market<< Do you define economic strength as any economic activity no matter what the source of funding or the net result on the structure of the economy going forward??