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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (28117)	9/25/2008 10:57:12 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 46821

Contribution from John Robb: globalguerrillas.typepad.com Absolutely brilliant analysis of the current financial crisis by John Robb. In a nutshell: we replaced centralized decision-making with an extremely narrow form of decentralized decision-making by capital markets, instead of distributing to open decision making involving the broader mass of citizens. This had lead to disastrous choices culminating in the current meltdown. Do read it twice, it's worth it. John Robb: "The 20th Century's central struggle was between the ideological systems that advocated governmental control of the economy and those that relied on market control. The market-based systems won. Why? In short, market-based systems made better investments, over the long term, than government managed systems. The lesson: systems with large numbers of decision makers, each with capital to invest, make better decisions. As is often the case, the emerging victory of the market-based system created yet another problem/struggle. Specifically: is it better to trust that individuals empowered with growing salaries/wages will make the best investments for future economic success — or — is it better to grow corporate profits (at the expense of wages/salaries) and let capital markets invest the excess? Between WW2 and 1974, while still engaged in a bitter struggle with Communism, the US hedged its bets on that question. Both individuals and the capital markets received an equal share of the benefits of productivity growth. Incomes rose mightily and we became broadly wealthy, mirrored by generous growth in the capital markets, relative to the start of the century. As a result of this shared decision-making system, smart investments in infrastructure, industry, education, and much more made America the economic powerhouse of the world. In short, we prospered. However, the shared decision making system ended. From 1974 onwards, the rewards of productivity growth (economic expansion) went exclusively to the capital markets and not into income growth for individuals. This was likely done, although the mechanism is unclear, under the assumption that the discipline of capital markets produced better investment decisions than individuals. Regardless of the motive or the specific mechanism, where the flow of capital from American economic activity went, couldn't be clearer: * Median per capita incomes in the US are the same as they were in 1974 — there hasn't been any income growth at all. * In contrast, we have seen torrential capital accumulation / concentration and the capital markets have enjoyed a nearly 30 year run of unbridled expansion. So, what was the result of this concentration/narrowing of decision making power in the hands of the capital markets? How did they invest thirty-four years of American productivity growth for the future? As of this year, the final results of this American experiment in financial decision making are in. The allocation of this capacity exclusively to capital markets, rather than sharing that decision making with hundreds of millions of Americans, has produced a horrible result. Instead of investing the accumulated wealth of America in productive assets that yielded long term benefits, the money was invested in derivatives (illusory financial products) that yielded nothing of tangible value. In short, the narrow group of actors that operate within the capital markets made the decision to forgo the long and difficult process of growing investments in the tangible world in favor of the outsized returns available through investments in virtual products. That investment is now evaporating."

To: axial who wrote (28117)	10/13/2008 5:26:34 PM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Yes, sad commentary but very true. It seems that the "American Way" has been distilled down to consumerism. The fruits of building a system that values education, technology, infrastructure that is forward looking but is determined within a democratic rather than a state run economy has been prosperity that has come to be seen as the means rather than the end result. "We are valued internationally because we consume" does not ring true and is not sustainable. But that has become the mantra of many politicians and companies. How could it be that the rest of the world needs America to fulfill the role or the largest consuming nation while what we have to trade with them has diminished? America's role in the world comes into sharp contrast when a large value of exports has become financial instruments including the vulnerable derivatives. This casts the huge float in government bonds and 'Full Faith and Credit' of the American government in jeopardy. In any case, we need to invest in the fundamentals. Maybe we won't recognize this until the US standard of living goes down to a level that citizens are forced to the recognition.