SI
SI
discoversearch

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: John Vosilla who wrote (79027)2/15/2007 7:07:54 PM
From: CalculatedRisk  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
Ballmer delivers sobering message at Microsoft event
marketwatch.com

Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Steve Ballmer tempered the expectations of analysts at an event Thursday, telling them their predictions for sales of the company's new operating system are too high, while those for its operating expenses may be too low.

The New York event was held by Microsoft to lend insight into the company's strategy for its fiscal 2008 beginning in July.

Without offering a specific differing forecast, Ballmer told assembled analysts their estimates for 2008 sales of the new Windows operating system, called Vista, are too high.

"The thing people forget is a new Windows release is a chance to sustain the revenue we have, every new Windows release is not necessarily a huge revenue opportunity," Ballmer said, adding that, "people are a little bit over optimistic, or more optimistic than we are about Windows revenue."

The consumer version of Vista was released in late January, following a release to businesses in November. Microsoft deferred roughly $1.6 billion in Vista-related revenue from its third quarter into its fourth quarter of 2007, resulting from delayed recognition of holiday sales.

In fiscal 2008, however, Ballmer said "non-corporate upgrades" to Vista will not increase at a dramatic pace, following "such a large surge after the release."



To: John Vosilla who wrote (79027)2/16/2007 8:44:42 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 110194
 
Even Bernake not dovish enough on inflation for the Democrats

Bernanke Rebuffs Frank on Rate Cut
Senator Questions Inflation Concern
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 16, 2007; Page D02

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke yesterday rejected a Democratic lawmaker's suggestion that he consider cutting interest rates to bolster the economy.

Bernanke, testifying for a second day on Capitol Hill, this time before the House Financial Services Committee, repeated that the Fed is likely to hold rates steady for a while if slower economic growth nudges inflation lower this year and next as expected.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said if the Federal Reserve does have to adjust interest rates in the next few months, it is more likely to be up than down. (By Susan Walsh -- Associated Press)
Transcript
Hearing on the Economy, the Labor Market and Monetary Policy
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Feb. 15, 2007.
Ben S. Bernanke

On Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, President Bush nominated Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, to succeed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan when he retires in January. Learn more about Bernanke's background and nomination.
Profile of the Nominee
Transcript of Nomination
Alan Greenspan's Tenure

In 1987, Alan Greenspan was sworn in as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Look back at his more than 18-year career through four presidencies with analysis of his legacy, a compilation of stories about his tenure and archived photographs.
Special Report

Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

But the Fed also thinks inflation is too high and might go higher, Bernanke said. If he and his colleagues adjust borrowing costs in coming months, they are more likely to raise rates than lower them.

"In order for this expansion to continue in a sustainable way, inflation needs to be well controlled," Bernanke said in response to remarks by committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "If inflation becomes higher for some reason, then the Federal Reserve would have to respond to that by raising interest rates."

Frank had told Bernanke the Fed's stance was "troubling" to him because the central bank also forecasts the economy will grow at a moderate rate this year, below its long-term average, and that inflation will drift lower over time.

"I don't see how we get a concern of inflation," Frank told Bernanke. "Why is there not at least an equal chance for there to be a reduction" in interest rates?

Bernanke responded that he and his Fed colleagues see several risks that the economy may not behave as forecast, and they would adjust interest rates as needed.

One possibility is that the economy weakens more than expected, perhaps if the housing slump deepens. Many private analysts have recently lowered their estimates of the economy's pace of growth because of a series of weak figures, including the Fed's report yesterday that U.S. industrial production fell in January.

But the Fed sees a greater risk of high inflation. Bernanke noted recent strong growth in consumer spending and incomes, "which suggests that the economy may be stronger than we think. It's possible."

If so, consumer demand might rise faster than the economy's ability to produce goods and services, he said. Already, the labor market is tight, with unemployment at a low 4.6 percent, and businesses' use of their production capacity is slightly above average, according to the Fed report.

The inflation risk lies in this danger of excessive demand, not in low unemployment alone, the Fed chairman said.

There is no specific level of unemployment that automatically triggers inflation, Bernanke, a former chairman of the Princeton University economics department, said in response to several lawmakers' questions.

That contrasts with the traditional view of many economists that unemployment below about 5 percent is inflationary. Bernanke's remarks partly reflect years of research that has debunked the idea of a long-term trade-off between unemployment and inflation. They also reflect the nation's experience in the late 1990s, when unemployment fell as low as 3.9 percent without causing much inflation.

The Fed's top policymakers forecast inflation to fall over the next 18 months while unemployment remains below 5 percent, indicating they are comfortable with joblessness so low.

Bernanke also said rising wages are not necessarily inflationary, as was widely believed in the 1970s when high inflation was blamed partly on unions' salary demands.

If businesses accept smaller profits -- they have been high lately -- companies can raise workers' wages without boosting prices, he said. Also, if labor productivity, or output per hour, rises quickly, businesses can produce more with the same labor force; again, workers' earnings can climb without pushing prices higher.

The low unemployment of the 1990s coincided with a takeoff in productivity growth. Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, recognized this at the time and did not increase interest rates, despite the urgings of the Fed staff and some Fed Board members. The high inflation of the 1970s coincided with lousy productivity growth.

Productivity growth has slowed recently, but it remained solid at 2.1 percent last year. And Bernanke said "underlying productivity trends appear favorable."

Even so, he said, it is possible that strong economic growth "could allow firms to pass higher labor costs through to prices, adding to inflation," and that would erode the purchasing power of any wage gains.



To: John Vosilla who wrote (79027)2/16/2007 1:42:47 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
Overall, our public services and infrastructure are a total mess. We grossly underinvest in both. We grossly overinvest in killing people half a world away. And we live with the false belief that cutting taxes in and of itself is good, when in fact it is simply irresponsible. By embracing the ideology of "government is bad" we are destroying the public foundations of our own society. If you look around the world, the role of government is best clarified in places where there is no effective government. These are called 'failed states'. We created a failed state in Iraq. What we did in Iraq was destroy a bad government and we replaced it with nothing -- there is no government in Iraq, only a sham backed by a gaggle of militia all killing one another and us. The US pretends to export 'democracy' when in fact we know precious little about how to organize and run a good, clean, efficient government. What would you expect in a country that has embraced the idea that 'government is bad' so we should 'cut taxes'?