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 : Disk Drive Sector Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LK2 who wrote (4707)	10/13/1998 12:17:00 PM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9256

Larry, your rebuttal of Huber makes sense to me, wrong side or not. GM [end]

To: LK2 who wrote (4707)	10/13/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: Stitch	Respond to of 9256

Larry, <<Gus and Stitch, do I really understand what I'm saying? I understand what I'm saying, but I don't know if I'm right or not. This is just general theory. I am saying what I believe, however.>> Many thanks for your thoughts Larry, which I find very little to argue with. I was not sure whether I found Huber's metaphor valuable in any way other then it ability to provoke thought and now I am even more sure that that is where the value of it lies. As a poster on another thread said: "don't be taken in by specious metaphors". By the way, the Huber article prompted a good deal of comment on the Asian Forum thread as well for those that want to read more. Larry, I agree. If Brazil also tanks I am reasonably certain we will not be better off. Best, Stitch

To: LK2 who wrote (4707)	10/14/1998 12:22:00 AM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9256

Naw, Larry, I don't think you understand the article at all. Sorry to be so blunt. I'm curious why you're fixated with this particular linkage. When I said the article was nonsense, I was disagreeing with Huber's conclusion that financial instability and bankruptcies are the basis of increased wealth for the individual investor (assuming he is talking about the average investor, and not a small group of elite superinvestors). I think you totally missed the point of the article: We know that free markets grow, on average, decade after decade, we know in general terms why, and it is fairly safe to assume that capitalist growth will continue. The important new factor may be that turbulence is destined to keep growing as well. The tide will keep on rising, but the waves and foam will keep on rising, too. You may want to try rereading the article instead of going off of those constant random walks of yours, because if you accept the central thesis of the article that volatility will increase as more economies become freer then doesn't that require you to adjust or perish? No matter the asset class (financial assets or hard assets), you have three basic stances: going long, going short, or doing nothing. What will it be, Larry? Regards, Gus