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 : Gateway (GTW) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kory who wrote (6649)	9/8/1998 7:18:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8002

kory, point about churning well taken. however, quick churning doesn't lift the market. as you know supply/demand lifts the market. at nearly 200% higher it seems logical to me that more money is required to buy the same amount of shares - ie, nearly 200% more. the question is whether more, less or the same shares are being bought. my guess is more as us stock market participation was recently at all time highs (which corresponded with the toppy market, btw - surprised? ;-). although i can't get at a number, i'd bet a lot that more money is put in near the top than at 1/3 the price levels. i'm sure someone has studied this and maybe barron's sheds some light. >>What if there are more people than are needed for productive endeavors? Just curious about your view on this.<< that is what happens during recessions. demand and, therefore, production must drop. then, there are more people than are needed and demand drops even further. a bad spiral. i don't have any answers. i do support a reasoned welfare/unemployment system, though. the economy is geared to have a certain level of unemployment so those caught up in it shouldn't die of starvation. however, i don't trust any govt official to be reasoned or to administer it appropriately :-(