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.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (45829)	11/26/2008 2:51:04 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

I've seen the first interview with Laffer and Schiff on CNBC but not that second fox one which was just awful. The thing I disagree with Schiff on is is constantly uses the dot com bubble allegory for where we are today. My view is the dot com bubble was just an extreme example of the way the economy is supposed to work and I'm not even sure it was all that extreme relative to the real wealth created by dot coms. All the dot com bubble was was another frothy growth period for an emerging industry, this is the way its supposed to happen, all these competitors come out, many fail and you are left with the winners. The dot com bubble produced a huge number of winners much more than the PC bubble years ago- those are amzn, ebay, paypal, cisco, google and on the chip side broadcom etc. those are real wealth. The only companies that failed in the dot com bubble were those associated with this new industry. Dot com did not take down 200 year old financial firms or anything. Housing is a totally different beast than the dot com bubble. At the end of this we will have all this debt and no wealth, just houses in the boonies. The only new industry created were SIVs, securitization, thats something but nothing in comparison to cisco, amazon, ebay, google etc. In fact the biggest securitzation companies might have gone under unlike ebay which never had any inclination it would go under, ever. This decade, unlike the dot com bubble decade, produced no wealth for the middle class. The 90s in the USA was more like the 50s with the middle class wages rising and full employment. The reason we had so many surpluses in the 90s is because it was a REAL BOOM unlike this decade with so many deficits. I wish Schiff would make that distinction but he does not. He just lumps everything together as if every boom is a bad one like a broken clock. Those idiots on fox are the worst, but I have yet to see a real discussion of the differences between this decade and last, from anybody. Obama wants to create new green industries with a subtext of getting off foreign oil. Thats the right thing to do, seed a new industry. We'll have to see how this plays out though.

To: tejek who wrote (45829)	11/26/2008 11:47:33 PM
From: koan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

>>You got to see this video circa 2007 where they are laughing at Peter Schiffer when he is predicting the current economic crisis. The laughter is loudest at Fox.....of course.<< Koan: "Did you see how wrong Arthur laffer was. It was his theory that supplyside economics was based on in 1980 Reaganomics!!. He was always a fool. They were both fools. And so is Ben Stein. The conservatives, so sure of themselves, and so wrong. DEad wrong. It is a surprise we survived the last eight years at all.