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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich evans who wrote (28349)	3/18/2005 8:08:14 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

You're confusing yourself for no good reason. The bottom line is this. The Current Account reflects your nation's prosperity. Let's say that salaries account for 90% of my company's revenues and profits the remaining 10%. My company uses no raw materials. When I moved all of America's jobs to Malaysia, I did 90% of the damage to America's prosperity and it's Current Account balance. When I moved and re-incorporated overseas, I created the other 10% of the damage. It's as simple as that. You'll need to exert a lot of energy to confuse yourself. When you have something called "globalization" which exports more wages than it imports or creates, that is actually called "bankruptcy" not globalization. .

To: rich evans who wrote (28349)	3/18/2005 11:17:36 PM
From: John Vosilla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Greenspan seems to think the capital surplus returned to the US arising from the deficit has funded our capex,R&D, productivity etc since our savings rate is so low. Buffett thinks totally diffently from his letter. Two heavyweights who are talking opposite. I can only say: I don't know, I am afraid. A major problem is corporate America is playing defensive for a host of reasons and not spending the available capital it should on R&D and capex. Few jobs for recent grads in the engineering, sciences and computer fields means more brain drain to India and the far east which will lead in new innovations and the quality value added jobs Greenspan raves about but none of us see anymore in our new ownership society.

To: rich evans who wrote (28349)	3/20/2005 3:28:17 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 306849

RE: " if goods sold in US and be positive to our current account." But the reverse is happening. In hightech, US sales have dropped drastically over the past few years relative to WW sales at many of the major firms. Even at my company, our international sales are much stronger than US sales. Intel's US sales plunged to 25%, off the top of my head, while world-wide sales increased, so US portion is small relatively. US sales used to be around 45% only a few years ago. And the decreasing dollar is increasing exports. RE: "Greenspan seems to think the capital surplus returned to the US arising from the deficit has funded our capex,R&D, productivity etc since our savings rate is so low. Buffett thinks totally diffently from his letter" I'll believe Buffett on this one. I don't think Greenspan is accurate on this, unless Greenspan is implying that people's refi's have contributed to consumer consumption of computers, then I would agree with Greenspan. But at what cost is this short-term consumption? It's created huge, long-term debts or misallocation of capital into the real estate industry - a non-productive industry that hasn't invented anything to further the economy on a long-term basis. Regards, Amy J