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 : TLAB info? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (2935)	8/12/1998 7:40:00 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 7342

some notes lifted off wsj tech page Similarly, John Eade, director of research at Argus Research Corp., is bullish on several PC makers, including Compaq Computer and International Business Machines, which have suffered from inventory gluts in distribution channels. The gluts are now beginning to clear up, Mr. Eade believes, and the companies are heading into their strongest season -- two reasons he has both stocks on his "buy" list. Mr. Eade is also recommending the stocks of several communications firms, including Lucent Technologies, Tellabs and Qualcomm, because he expects the sector to continue to show strong sales growth. More generally, Mr. Eade believes Tuesday's sell-off represents the tail-end of another market correction, not the beginning of a bear market. "We think this move to the downside has just about run its course," he said.

To: dougjn who wrote (2935)	8/12/1998 11:24:00 AM
From: bananawind	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7342

Doug, Great post on the systemic strengths of the US wealth creation engine. Couldn't agree with you more. Might also add corporate governance, financial transparency, and a decent legal system as important building blocks. Its like Maurice has said over on the Q thread, create the right environment then get out of the way. Brainpower is the coinage that counts. -JLF

To: dougjn who wrote (2935)	8/12/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: JMD	Respond to of 7342

***off topic; on topic?***** Doug, no apologies necessary dude--you be flying high! Nice rip, enjoyed it very much. The only problem is that I find precious little to disagree with. :-) But a few minor carps never hurt . . . First, you short-term oriented, money-grubbing capitalist--how dare you dismiss the future of software radio. It ain't the future my man cause it's the present. Nip on over to the Qualcomm thread today. Last year's QCP2700 handset from the Mighty Q is SOFTWARE UPGRADEABLE. Yes indeedy, pop on down to your nearest Sony or Mighty Q dealer, spend 5 minutes and evidently zero dollars, and your handset will have all the latest and greatest features. Combine that with the new base stations [alright, they're not out yet] which will do the same thing and we've got some big time means of reducing cell phone infrastructure costs at the transmitting and receiving end. I think this software radio stuff is a very big deal even if some portion of it is down the road a piece. Plus George Gilder agrees with me so put that in your pipe. . . . Second, software radio makes your point eloquently. The 'new' capital of the information age is intellectual capital. The hardware behind all these miraculous gizmoes keeps fading further into the background, while the software--arguably the purest form of intellectual capital--comes to the fore. You argue, and I fully agree, that the investment banking industry is one of America's most potent competitive advantages and the primary source of wealth creation. But what do our tasseled loafer friends do? They allocate monetary capital based on their judgement of the intellectual capital 'most deserving'. And then it's Katy, bar the door as the market renders ITS swift and brutal judgement of their judgement. And to the winners . . . . What is therefore created is a marketplace of intellectual capital constantly thrashing about in the most competitive market in the world. When countries get in economic trouble, it seems to me that it is almost invariably the result of a breakdown in this market mechanism. Savings and Loans played with 'free' money in the U.S. 15 years ago. Want a loan? No problem, the government guarantees against default. Ergo, no risk exposure (no possibility of loss = no market discipline), and bingo we build about 5 times as much product [and would have built more] than the market would otherwise have required. Each of the Asian countries is unique and uniquely complex. I would argue however that each has fashioned its own flavor of market shielding 'devices' and each has suffered a decidedly un-unique consequence as a result. In conclusion, each reader of this rant is to send $5.00 plus the first page of their cell phone users manual to my attention so we can buy the Steinbrecher division from TLAB. The future is now. Mike Doyle

To: dougjn who wrote (2935)	8/13/1998 1:21:00 AM
From: red jinn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7342

doug: you tout the advantages of our banking/funding/competitiion system as major catalysts for the success of our system. agree, but i think the answer is more basic than that altho not necessarily simple. frederich hayek, a nobel laureate in econ, said that what we and other successful countries had was the working of what he called "spontaneous order," which is easier to describe with an example. thus, no one knows how to make a #2 pencil, i.e., mining the graphite, harvesting and shaping lumber, making the rubber for the eraser, not to mention putting it all together. yet we have 3-cent pencils b/e thousands of people in a million acts and transactions exercising their judgment in their own areas of expertise combine to yield the correct result. a country based on spontaneous order can only exist if the cultural underpinnings are there, principally the rule of law, which is relatively fragile. ask the downtrodden in many countries in south america, africa, and asia. clinton showed in his china speeches that he didn't understand this when he said that the strength of the u.s. was in its democratic freedom of the press, religion, assembly, petition, etc. ask yourself how far freedom of the press goes when the government won't sell you paper. or what happens to freedom of religion when the govt can say - i don't care whether the rationale is diversity, equal time or what - you must turn over/lease (for free?) your facilities to another religion. none of our freedoms we take for granted can survive the destruction of property rights, which of course can happen from oppressive taxation as well as outright confiscation. you cite our earlier reliance on resources as an explanation for our success. true we were blessed, but many countries (u.s.s.r.) had the resources and didn't prosper while those that didn't (hong kong) did. the trick was the cultural underpinnings that many/most who are benefiting from living in the freest country in the world aren't even aware of. consider our constitution (not the bill of rights). the word "right" appears just once. the rest is all process, e.g., must be 25 to run for congress; senate must approve treaties; congress has the power to do x, y, or z, but is not required to do anything, etc. but our founders, who counted their wealth in slaves, wheat fields, and specie, approved Article I, Seciton 8, which says (roughly) that "congress shall, for a limited period of time, protect the rights of authors and inventors to their respective writings and discoveries...." Think about it: over 200 years ago the property of the mind was recognized as worth protecting even though, today, many asian cultures have trouble saying that ideas aren't collective property. and since ip is really the engine that is behind the current increases in our wealth/income, i think that the disparities will grow between those countries that recognize/protect ip and those that don't. the issues you raise, doug, are well worth discussing in detail; it's just hard to be thoughtful when you have to type. but, as one who mostly lurks, i just wanted to thank you and others on this and other threads who have contributed so many insights that i have found valuable. good investing. best regards, peter