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 Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (43595)	10/16/2005 5:24:32 PM
From: ild	Respond to of 110194

Return on Equity One needn't assume that ROE will revert to its historical norm of 11-12% to understand that current ROE levels are unlikely to be sustained indefinitely. That's another way of saying that P/E ratios, currently benefiting from high profit margins and other factors, may start looking more consistent with other fundamentals like price/book, price/revenue, and price/dividend ratios: really, really high. By John P. Hussman, Ph.D. hussmanfunds.com

To: ild who wrote (43595)	10/16/2005 8:06:29 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Hello ild, <<Is there a reason to believe that China will become something comparable to the US in research, development of new technologies etc?>> Just from what I have seen, I do not doubt the premise for one moment, and thus my worry about the general level of competition going forward for my kid eubusiness.com China graduates about 200k engineers / scientists per annum, and so plenty of raw material, even as more schools and teachers are being aggregated; but as in the case of most issues, I do not believe the simple numbers tell the story. I believe the society, from the very top to the absolute bottom, realizes the importance of education; coupled with a respect for education and for teaching, the society also believes nothing is impossible, only the ways forward needs to be tried, and so the trend is clear. <<Yesterday I had a dinner with one university professor who argued that China is not capable of challenging the dominance of the US in these areas in our lifetime>> I am guessing the man is 60 years old and expects to live to 80. Should he live to 81, he will see not just a challenge, but an overtaking, in the small r, big D, and after another 4 years, the big R as well. While the improvements are cumulative, advantages are at the margin, fragile, and can be more easily copied and improved upon than be put together originally. The catch-up is actually easier than the original trailblazing, but the over-take is much easier than the catch-up. I think it is dangerous to adopt the attitude that "they will still lag here ... and there", because as in the case on Unreal Tournament 2004 on-line game, the conclusion is always one or the other team rushing forth, from every direction, in every way, in onslaught mode, and establishing, to be polite, a leading position, right before the announcer proclaims, "Team One, You Won the Match". This is what I meant when noting that the folks are getting false signals and wrong messages, or they are not getting any messages at all. I think the rising challenge from China and India is good for the world, because maybe perhaps just possibly something good will arise, and new ways forward will work, else, as some numbnut thought, history ended and all that needs to be done is done. Just as England engaged the US so as to remain relevant, perhaps the US will see that it is to its advantage to engage the competition. Who knows? Let's watch. Chugs, J

To: ild who wrote (43595)	10/16/2005 8:09:16 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 110194

Yesterday I had a dinner with one university professor who argued that China is not capable of challenging the dominance of the US in these areas in our lifetime. Same thing was said about Japan 40 years ago and Korea 20 years ago and it all has the same root in 19th century phrenology studies designed to "prove" superiority of caucasians. IMO such statements represent a a very dangerous form of hubris, and also ignore the simple fact there are already all kinds of fields where there simply is no US "dominance" in research.

To: ild who wrote (43595)	10/16/2005 9:16:02 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 110194

ild, Jay's ability to think and write is amazing, especially when he is continuously distracted by that coconut who must have already used up her life time allotment of photos. <ggggg> You would think that he is one of these stereotypical Hong Kongese who can never sit still and talks 3000 words per minute. Having met him, he is rather calm and collected. Can you believe that our conversation was only interrupted by his cell phone 2 or 3 times in a whole hour? <gggggg hi Jay> R&D is a very broad subject. I suspect that China has already surpassed the US in some new technologies. Take the textile industry for instance. Since material cost is relatively high for China, I bet you take have invested far more in the latest cadcam stuff that optimizes cutting and sewing utilizing state of the art laser cutters. While Greenspan is encouraging joe6pak to be retrained at community colleges, our institutions of higher learning are packed with foreign students, many from China. But this is not a pissing contest, it is about change and how each of us may selfishly benefit from the change. Speaking of change .... nahb.org The HMI should be released Tuesday, along with a ton of earnings report from the homebuilders. It could be the final confirmation of change of sentiments. Ramsey