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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMD who wrote (13156)	7/30/1998 10:14:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

*OT Money supply* SurferM, I would love to consider economics so boring that I never had to think about it again, but it seems to link closely to $, which has a directly proportional impact on what groceries and cellphones I get to buy. It seems to me that we have about 3 or 4 registered experts on this stuff here. I struggle to understand it and have pontificated [= thinking out loud in the hope that one of you 3 or 4 who really knows would correct the gaps in my thinking], with my conclusion that $100 turns into $0.02 or something like that according to Joe [nee Chimp]. Anyway, those charts confirm the impression I have that the money supply just goes on up [yes, yes, I know it has to with bigger economy, production and blah blah] but all jiggery pokery aside, isn't it true that all money starts at the Fed and just gets re-lent lots of times with the money supply also depending on how much reserve the banks have to keep? Primarily, the Fed prints $1bn checks and that is the basic money supply. Which then 'breathes' like a cdmaOne cell, getting bigger or smaller depending on demand and lending and stuff. But what the charts don't say, is how fast the money is moving. As electronics more and more displace notes, checks etc, doesn't a smaller amount of money have the same effect? So even though there is less of the stuff around, when it really moves along, that is the same as an increased money supply. Yes? No longer do you send a draft by sailing ship to the south seas. You TT it to me overnight. And I bounce it straight back to Jack White, then it heads by auto payment to the Sony factory in China and bounces off the JIT production system right back to Q.com who pay you dividends, so we are back to where it started. All in 2 days. Moving like lightning, a few electrons can do the work of bales of 1930's Marks. It's nearly the weekend, so everyone can nod off. This fast moving, inflating money, means the value of real stuff = production, just keeps going up. But 'inflation' doesn't take off because of all the amazing advances which increase function and reduce cost of that function. Neither do salaries take off, because there are 5bn people who all want an income, so they are ready to work. So Mighty Q builds production lines in Brazil. So the alleged paradox of lots of printing but no inflation is a crock. Hence Dow16000 by Feb 2002. And Qualcomm $80 tomorrow. Wow and wow this is really going to have to be a fast movement. So, tell me, where is this wrong? Thanks for any illumination you can provide. That's my US$0.02 Mqurice [Rule number one. People who own money trees love to fertilize them, water them, clone them and harvest them with gay abandon. The Fed owns the world's biggest money tree. The Japanese have a big one too. Between them, they shed a LOT of leaves.]