You are on ET so much that it is almost freaking impossible trying to constantly follow-up on all of the controversy that you create. By the way, stay out of the Automobile Thread. You and "Sulong" are kind of embarrassing in regards to your knowledge about cars! Talk to ya tomorrow. Night night.
Thats pretty interesting.. I noticed thestreet.com has a headline in its commentary suggesting something sinister. I don't subscribe, so can't actually read it, but they seem not to have any followups on it. Man that site really sucks ass if the pre-release really happened.
I'm not in the automobile thread. I just had one post to riskarb. And why are you afraid to answer my post. I know I have you boxed in a corner but you won't answer, that's because you know I am right. But rather then prove me wrong, just add some comments. Don't run away, it's not like you to do that. You went after JS with the same veracity that I with you. You want JS to step up to the plate and I want you to step up to the plate. So when you are ready, respond to my post. Thank you.
In regards to answering your question as to whether there were really 2 million or so jobs lost in the past 3 years, and whether or not they even existed in the first place based on your "Bubble-World" thesis, I would say that yes these jobs did in fact exist. However, I believe that you have dramatically overstated the amount of jobs that were lost nationwide in the past couple of years in high-tech. I would argue that the number is more closer to 700,000 than the 2 million that you have previously stated. In any event, I believe that your argument is flawed because you simply fail to look at the Economy as a dynamic entity, and your question makes a generalization that is based not only on "20/20" hindsight, but also looking at the Economy in static snapshots. Therefore, your argument is null and void, pure and simple. There was a tremendous realization at the time of the Millennium that advancements in telecom would truly revolutionize our Economy, much in the same way that the railroad revolutionized our Economy back in the 1890's, or the automobile in the 1920's, or commercial aviation shortly thereafter, or the computer in the 1980's. Companies like Commerce One and Ariba were reflective of just where the marketplace was expected to grow with revolutionary ways of doing business vs the old "brick and mortar" architecture. Did the Economy somehow not create all of these new jobs in high-tech during this explosive phase in telecom? Of course not! People and companies were making HUGE investments in their corporate assets in an effort to be competitive and realize market share. Try reading Joseph Schumpeter's theory on Creative Destruction and you will get a handle on what I am talking about. That is the real world. There is nothing "imaginary" or fake about it, let alone discountable. Moreover, I think that you give far too much credit to the Dot-Bomb phase, especially since our Economy is so much more diverse than what you give it credit for. Sure, 560,000 jobs were lost in high-tech jobs, nationwide from January 2001 - December of 2002 but nowhere near the 2 million number that you have mentioned. Furthermore, if you were to ask the likes of John Chambers at CSCO, or Scott Kriens at JNPR I'm sure that back in late 2000 or early 2001, they really did genuinely believe that their businesses were going to grow at a 40% annualized growth rate. As a result, people were hired. And when the marketplace finally realized that the demand for broadband was not what people had initially expected, and that Global Crossing had totally fudged their numbers regarding what the marketplace would bear regarding the growth in fiber optic cable being installed, orders were pulled and there was no longer a sense of urgency to grab marketshare. As a result, the growth in telecom imploded and jobs were cut. Did these jobs ever exist in the first place? Sure they did. They were real, corporations placed some huge bets on their insight and forecasts and they were a portion of our Economy's growth at the time. To go back and try and make a case that these jobs never existed, thus they were never lost in the first place is pure poppy-cock, as my late grandfather would say. For another example, just look at how long Goldman Sachs waited before they finally laid off some employees in this last bear phase of the equity markets. In fact, even though the markets were starting to turn back in early 2003, broker/dealers were still cleaning house. And some of these investment banks would have been able to survive had they bitten the bullet much sooner in the downcycle. Case in point, the big IPO firm out here in San Francisco, Robbie Stephens closed their doors with 900 people employed. Had they cut this number by just one-third, they most likely would have been able to survive just from the buy-side funds picking up the phones and placing trades thru their desk like they were used to doing. Thus, there are decisions that have to be made based on the profitability environment at hand, and these decisions and forecasts have to be continually updated. Again, they are dynamic and contain many variables let alone do not occur in a vacuum. Come on Mav, this is basic Econ. 101 here. In any event, the Economy is very much a dynamic animal. There are cycles in all sectors of the economy. Just because the Captains of the Telecom sector made a mistaken forecast doesn't necessarily mean that those jobs never existed! For example, when the railroad industry employed 75% of the Nation's workforce and those people wound-up losing their jobs after the railroad industry had matured and the growth rate began to decline, do we then say that those jobs never existed because there was a "Bubble" in the railroad business? Was this "bubble" somehow different than telecom because this decline in the railroad industry took years to occur rather than a couple of quarters? Of course not! GO UCONN!
Waggie, I think you completely missed my point. Yes, those jobs existed. Yes, everyone really did think that telecom and fiber optics and broadband and all that other stuff was going to take off much more then it did. But my point was that the reason these companies where able to make the kind of investments in their infrastructure and make these kind of big bets is because there was an enormous supply of capital out there. This is Econ 101 my friend. Supply side economics ring a bell here? When you over extend credit and capital to anyone that asks for it, its very easy to grow your companies at very high multiples like they did. That is why during the late 90's we were seeing 400% to 500% revenue growth. You had to hire a lot of workers just to keep up with demand. My point is that was not a realistic expectation. We could not continue to grow at 400% to 500%. And we could not continue to lend money to anyone that asked for it. Don't you see now why we have corporate debt at all time highs? They are still paying off all the money they borrowed in the late 90's. Consumer debt is at all time highs. Personal bankruptcies are at all time highs. Bank foreclosures are at all time highs. Why? Because of credit overextension. And another point, it wasn't just the tech sector, money was being spread around to every industry. As people were getting richer, they were spending more. It was not uncommon during the dot com days to see companies spending millions on parties, recreation. Hell, didn't you see the video of Tyco's big bash they threw. That's what I am talking about. Well that money had to go somewhere did it not? So catering companies made more money, restaurants made more money, bars hotels, car sales, jet sales, you name it, people had money to spend, and demand could not keep up. So you had millions of jobs created out of artificial demand. Why artificial? Because it wasn't their money they were spending!!!!!!!!!. They were leveraging their stock options, they were using their bonuses that they didn't have yet, they were banking on big contract deals out in the future. It was one big f*cking derivative contract on the future prosperity of this country. Only problem is, the derivative expired worthless and when the debt needed to be repaid, no one had the money. So jobs disappeared, companies shut down, or cut back, everyone did everything they could to squeeze a nickel here or a nickel there. And not just in the tech sector!!!!!! Everywhere. The restaurants, the bars, the mall, strip malls, you name it, everyone was cutting back. You would think we would have learned something from the 1920's, but no, it was different this time, or so we were told every day on CNBC. Another point I would like to make. Waggie, a lot of people left their jobs in the 90's to go off on their own. Many of them became daytraders, many of them started their own internet company, many of them just cashed in their stock options and did whatever they wanted to do. So now what? Well now you have all these openings at various jobs at a time when demand was skyrocketing. So? So, these companies were forced to hire very marginal workers, workers who in today's environment, would not be able to get jobs. That also kept employment high. Waggie I know a while back I wrote a long post about MSCE's. I had a lot of friends do this. These MSCE schools were recruiting people like crazy. After an 8 week course Waggie, you could get your certifications and be making 60k a year with a high school diploma!!!!!! I'm dead serious. It was sick, and everyone was doing this. Finally countries overseas caught on to do this and knew that was not a high skilled job but rather a vocational skill that could be taught to anyone. So what do you know, they started taking these jobs at 1/3 our salary, which is what they should be getting paid. It was a joke Waggie, the whole thing was a joke. My buddy sat in the class with high school dropouts, at home moms and truck drivers and many of these people were making over 100k after they got additional certifications. Obviously you are having a hard time seeing the forest through the trees. I don't think in your or mine's lifetime, we will ever see the kind of money supply that we had during the late 90's. It will never be that easy to get a loan to start a business ever again. you probably won't see taxi cab drivers daytrading stocks and high school dropouts making 60k a year because they took an 8 week class. You won't see 23 year old kids making a 100 million their first year out of school because their little internet company they created in their dorm hall just went public. So I will say it again, those jobs were created out of an anomaly that happens maybe once every hundred years. When the stock market went through its correction, so did the economy and all those excess jobs got cleaned out. If you can't see this, I don't know what to tell you. You are living in a fantasy world. But I will tell you this. Your and mine grand kids will probably see this happen again. And they will say, oh, it's different this time. And I'm sure some President will take a lot of heat when he takes office after that bubble melts and millions of jobs and dollars go up in smoke.
After reading your post, I have no idea what you were trying to prove. At first, you asked me if those jobs actually existed and I replied in the affirmative. Then, you came back and also agreed that they "existed" at the very beginning of your last post, so I am rather puzzled about your logic and what it is that you were trying to prove. As to the tremendous growth in money supply just before the Millennium, that was obvious Mav. There is no controversy there whatsoever . . Thus, I still don't get the point of your discussion. You have a habit of simpy restating the obvious. Do you just enjoy ranting and raving just for the sake of it? I'm starting to get that feeling, Mav. You also end your discussion by saying that I am "living in a dream world" because you imply that I am somehow incapable of seeing that "all those jobs got cleaned out" when the stockmarket went through its correction. Mav, please re-check my post and see if you can find anywhere in my discussioin where I indicate that these jobs never were lost. I never said anything of the kind and quite frankly I have to wonder why you are making an argument out of "thin air". Again. for someone that supposedly "agreed" with me about jobs that actually "existed" I am at a loss as to what it is that you are arguing about! Something tells me that you need to be upping your dose of lithium. Sorry man, but I have to get back to my trading.
Waggie my point was that you are nothing but a Bush bashing piece of shit that will never see the forest through the trees. Sorry to be so harsh but it seems to be the only way you understand things. You have been on ET for months now attacking Bush on the jobs, on the economy, and I am trying to tell you that Bush has no control over the jobs. The Fed's monetary policy has 100 times the influence on the market and the economy then George W. But you can't see this. You hate this man so much, why, I don't know. But you hate him so much that you just want to blame Bush for everything. So I explained to you why you can't blame Bush for the economic transition we went through the last few years. For the last time, it has nothing to do with Bush. Just keep saying that to yourself in your puny little head. It has nothing to do with Bush. One day I hope you see this. I think you will become a happier man when you let go of all these conspiracy theories you have. I don't want to hear about how great everything was under Clinton and how Bush somehow lost 2 million jobs like someone loses their car keys. Get a freaking clue. Better yet, go back to Cal and take some remedial economic classes again on monetary policy and its effect on money supply and credit. Then come back here and tell me Bush lost 2 million jobs. F*cking A man, you are as bad as James Stock.
interest rates have been essentially zero for a couple of years now, fed printing dollars like there's no tomorrow, so if your premise above is correct, why aren't we in the middle of a boom right now? there's no shortage of cheap capital out there...