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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38345)	12/6/1998 3:00:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mary, again, I agree with you, at least your observations, but not necessarily with your conclusion. Let me offer this observation: First, it is self-evident that most of the people who are buying stocks now via the Internet do not have the education and training to value stocks like a Wharton-trained professional fund manager.<g> A substantial number of people, I am told, believe that Elvis is still alive, that aliens are in contact with Earthlings on a daily basis, that women are inferior to men, that blacks are inferior to whites, and other ridiculous twaddle. Educated people commit grievous errors of logic and understanding every day. So why should they be any better at investing than they are at thinking? The world is full of lunatics, and they all have phones, and pretty soon they will all be on the internet.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (38345)	12/6/1998 6:14:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>Only this is a new equation<< that was precisely the argument in the usa during the late 20s and japan about 10 years ago. the argument is the same but the details are different. doesn't mean what you say isn't true. however, the argument has been made before (albeit, with different details) and those that bought paid dearly. some with their lives. i do admit that i'm a skeptic. i don't just believe anything. i'd also go along with the fact that easier access to investing - the mainstreaming of investing - could help sustain valuations over what they would otherwise be. i could stomach maybe 10-20%. 200%+++ is just too much for me to swallow. doubling already rich valuations in a little over a month with very little real change wreaks of rank speculation to me. sure, people feel real good now. they feel rich. however, by definition, everyone can't get out at these levels so that good feeling is worse than worthless - it is downright dangerous. i think the smart people are getting out. eps may very well decline while valuations have just doubled for may companies. e-tail is an utter joke. rank, rank, rank speculation. when a lot of those gamblers go broke they may leave the net for a while. the bottom line is that it is the economy. the net won't prevent bad times just like it won't prevent people from reigning in spending during those times. the market,imho, is irrational. extraordinarily so. however, it can remain so for extended periods of time. after seeing dram pricing collapse 30% in one q and mu stock go up 20% in a day (to $60) while the analysts were touting mu was in the "best of all worlds" in the latter half of 1997, NOTHING surprises me. mu did hit the low $20s a few months later. if losing 60% of your investment dollar is the "best of all worlds" then that is where mu was in the latter half of 1997. btw, the net makes communication more efficient. both good AND evil.