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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (3208)	7/25/2003 3:56:16 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4907

<I guess the irony is completely lost on you guys. You're stuck on the fact that with all the value added by the Internet and computers, that you got rich betting against it.> I dont' see anyone stuck on that, I see people showing how Guilder didnt' make much sense for real economics and business, but blabbed theoretical hope: Message 19145081 Message 19145095 Message 19144829 Perhaps this post is 'stuck' on extrapolating some personal experiece however :))) : Message 19145117 <The value is there, it just can't be monetized in the way that people wanted it to be and it was as destructive as it is constructive. > That's what productivity IS, that was what everyone was saying. Message 19145159 Everyone here [we guys] seems to simply be saying the expectations were unreal: Message 19145005 <<Not because Gilder was wrong and Heinz was right. They were both wrong and both right but in different ways.>> Actually that's not true, Heinz was right. He specifically went over in detail how Micheal's point would pan out... the malinvestment involved and the rosy scenario of Guilders simply being too rosy based on that massive investment. He never said technology wouldn't end up being great, or that it wasn't already 'great'. That turned out to be right on. DAK

To: GraceZ who wrote (3208)	7/25/2003 7:31:36 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4907

Grace, Hey, wait a minute didn't we have a discussion a while back about how deceptive it was to measure productivity and real value in dollars? I guess the irony is completely lost on you guys. You're stuck on the fact that with all the value added by the Internet and computers, that you got rich betting against it. Not because Gilder was wrong and Heinz was right. They were both wrong and both right but in different ways. The value is there, it just can't be monetized in the way that people wanted it to be and it was as destructive as it is constructive. All technological change is destructive because it's disruptive. Exactly right. All that improved productivity means is that a good or service can now be produced with a smaller quantity or value of production factors, including labor. There is nothing at all that guarantees that improved monetary revenues or profits will result, even ignoring any existing production capital that may be destroyed in the process as conditions change. In most cases, the net result is lower final product prices and new products and services, and a general improvement in the standard of living. For actual monetary revenues and profits to increase, the price elasticity of demand must be large enough to overcome the reduction in final prices enforced by competition, as most productive enhancements are generally available to most actual and potential competitors. People become better off by both accumulating future dollar denominated purchasing power and by having an increased choice of lower priced products and services so that each dollar goes further. Investment returns, wages, and returns on other production factors depend in the long run on actual monetary profits. Productivity enhancements cannot guarantee any such profits, but the lack of such profits will slow the incentives that produce the enhancements themselves. Productivity enhancements can be thought of as large and small scale seismic movements which turn the potential energy of built up pressures into work which rearranges the landscape. The result of the process has both good and bad features, destroying both productive buildings and useless hulks. Rivers and lakes may be created or destroyed. Regards, Don

To: GraceZ who wrote (3208)	7/25/2003 11:57:22 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4907

The value is there, it just can't be monetized in the way that people wanted it to be and it was as destructive as it is constructive you're missing the point. the idea of a GDP data series is not to measure some Platonic notion of value. it is, rather, to measure GDP, which is measured in dollars. the consistent use of dollars allows comparison of today's apples to yesterday's apples. the use of hedonic adjustments in order to "monetize" that which is nonmonetary results in a comparison of yesterday's apples to today's apples plus whatever the hell the people in the Bureau of Lies and Statistics can think up. only the uninformed and the hopelessly naive could believe this is anything other than a ruse to make today's crop of apples look better than it is.