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: Earlie who wrote (48873)	2/25/1999 12:44:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, >>>There comes a point I think, where a complete wipe-out becomes inevitable,.<<< Please excuse my writing style as it may be irritating or appear argumentative. I respect the civility and the sincerity of your posts. Having said that, for now, I don't see the supporting argument that comes with your conclusion. Even if your predictions do come true, I would still need some time frames as to when these events are to occur. Do they happen all at once, or do they happen over time. And, more importantly, when does it take place. I don't expect an answer to these questions right away. I will continue to read your thoughts on this thread and perhaps get to understand your views. In, any case keep up the good work. Sincerely, Mary

To: Earlie who wrote (48873)	2/25/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Peter Singleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, <<There comes a point I think, where a complete wipe-out becomes inevitable,...a sort of point of no return. I think of it in terms of a car approaching a tight turn,....there is a point beyond which even a skilled driver has run out of room and he becomes a projectile obeying irrefutable laws of physics. If the deflationary wave could have somehow been arrested at an earlier point, perhaps we might have been able to avoid its impact. Now, it appears to me to be too late.>> Beautifully crafted, both your words and your thoughts. Similarly, your whole post. It's been puzzling watching the market today, averages down some, long bond tanking. There seems to be no real selling pressure in the market the past couple of months. I commented on this in a note to LongWaves earlier today. Last 3Q, the selling was relentless, an awesome undertow on the market. The past couple of months, and particularly the past several weeks, with similarly atrocious technicals on the market, no real selling power. I think the differences are twofold, and they're undoubtedly related. The first is the wash of liquidity the Fed and friends are pumping into the system. The second is the absence of fear. Until the market extracts first a cost, then a penalty, for the Fed's recklessness, there's no hard down possible. But when it returns in the dead of night to collect its due, watch out. JMVHO, of course. I'm with Mike M on this. Der's a hard reckoning acomin' (how's that, Mike, did I get it right?) ... made much, much worse by the accreted moral hazard built up in this deliberately reinflated bubble. No "ho ho ho" from me, though. <ng> Peter

To: Earlie who wrote (48873)	2/25/1999 2:11:00 PM
From: BGR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, If the deflationary wave could have somehow been arrested at an earlier point, perhaps we might have been able to avoid its impact. Now, it appears to me to be too late. Three points: 1. Technology and deflationary pressures have always gone hand in hand. Successful companies are the ones that survived the deflationary pressure by building better technology. IMHO there is hardly a reason to conclude that there is a need to focus on arresting deflationary pressures on the present technology, instead companies which will always focus on building the future technology (providing higher margins for a while, but not for ever) will be winners in the long run. It is a dynamic and not a static world. IOW, focus on the future and not the present. 2. And it is this deflationary pressure that perhaps keeps the inflation in the broader economy in check. And, despite the deflation, technology is continually accounting for larger sections of the total economy. So may be the 'New Era' folks do have some point after all. 3. Finally, reading your post it seems to me that it is a slowdown in demand and not competition that is INTC's cause for trouble. Even assuming that INTC has a monopoly by your calculation INTC is overproducing by about 33% (120 MM vs. 90 MM). The INTC projection model has to be completely off base for them to let this happen. While I appreciate your reluctance to present your analyses of how you reached the 90 MM figure, I remain skeptical. -BGR.