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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (7578)	10/17/2003 10:12:34 AM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

This was about Motorola, but is relevant to AMAT about flat panel displays: The market is growing quickly for LCD monitors, which are thinner, lighter and display vastly better pictures than traditional cathode ray tube screens. LCD's are also a lot more expensive, although their prices have begun to come down. That's probably why traditional televisions with CRT screens now make up 95% of the market while thinner LCD screens account for 2% of it, according to iSuppli/Stanford Resources. But by 2007, 80% of TV's will be CRTs and 14% of them will have LCD screens. fred

To: Fred Levine who wrote (7578)	10/17/2003 4:05:21 PM
From: JSwanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

I personally know three very bright Ivy League graduates who don't work, but live off inheritances. What does that matter? Would it be better if the government took 80% of that inheritance spent it? Spending is spending regardless of who is actually doing the spending. Why do people think that if the government spends the money rather than the private sector, our country will be better off? BTW, Bill Gates, his father, and Warren Buffett are among the people who agree with a steep inheritance tax. Of course they do they have tens of billions of dollars. At their level of wealth there is essentially no difference between an inheritance tax of 40% to 60% to 80% on their heirs. Even if Gates gives away (or the government took 99%) of Gate's $46 billion, he would have $460 million to give to his heirs. If Buffett were taxed at 99% is heirs would have to suffer by trying to live on $360 million. They are hardly the people to listen to regarding inheritance tax issues. JS