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: John Cuthbertson who wrote (13792)	8/16/1998 6:50:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

*LBP on Krugman* John, How about it should have been 2% [which I'm sure was the figure he gave] is Asian trade? He was making the case that the USA economy is internally so substantial that the Asian crisis wouldn't damage it significantly, even with a multiplier [whatever that is] related to the fact that, as you say, some internal activity is related to import and export activity. I did think 2% was pretty small! US exports $1 trillion. Canada, Mexico, Amoco to BP Oil, and visits by New Zealanders to Disneyland must be a big part of that 12%. Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand which have crashed in production can't figure too strongly in that 12%. Japan would be bigger, but they haven't actually had a production drop of much significance, just a loans shambles in banking. Sorry I can't give the numbers precisely - but he was demonstrating the lack of connection to the crashed Asian economies and how they can't, simply because of their production and consumption drops, cause the USA to have a substantial crunch. He said a lot more too, but the 2% figure was related to the trade aspect. I've just been reading his web page = very interesting. I see he has hijacked my explanation of investors doing well. Take 100 monkeys and get them to choose to buy or sell. 50 will get it right. Do it again and you get 25. And again. And again etc. In the end you get 1 monkey who has had a big string of success and is a very rich, astute and ready to brag investing genius. If only we could tell whether we are monkeys or not! If we remember why we bought a stock and there is a lot of sound reasoning involved and in 2 years time, the stock is great and the reasoning fits what happened, I guess we can say we are good investors. Overall, his theme seems to be that printing is invariably popular and pretty generally a good thing. Deflation isn't a realistic option [despite his serial and parallel stupidity concerns after his radicalizing event]. While I don't like it, his writings seem to fit how things actually happen, which is what matters, not whether I like it or not. As investors we need to act on what will be, not what we want to be. Oddly though, by our investing, we create what will be. Damn, back in the Zenzone. Mqurice