OKay, OKay, I understand that "new" economies are more risky and subject to change, but that would lead one to believe the NASDAQ is the place to invest. The NASDAQ lost about 50% of its value in the 1987 crash, 50%. It's been a decade since then. One would think that the tech-industry, given that US [sic] corporations have shipped most of the production off shore, would have matured somewhat by now.
Perhaps, a smarty-pants would argue that, by it's nature, high-tech industry, our "new economy," is rife with uncertainty, and thus rife with growth 'potential' and volatility. Our economy will, for the foreseeable future, be the new-technology leader; that will be our role in the world. Great! We're sooo cool. USA is on the cutting edge. We can ship dirty old industries off shore, and focus on the new innovative stuff!
OKay. I'll buy that. But, if that's the case, isn't our economy subject, for the foreseeable future, to the volatility that is the nature of high-tech industry?
Sources:
6 comments:
YESSSSSS! Someone else gets it!
What's wrong with making "things" vs. making "virtual things"? Nothing. It's all in the perception. It is sexy to be technologically advanced, and we are a country of citizens that want to be sexy. It's better to be unemployed than to have a job that is beneath us, better to be unemployed with a Masters degree than to be employed with a Bachelors (or only a diploma).
Yet, when your PC doesn't work, you still have other things to do: clean the house (with manufactured products), work in the yard (with manufactured products), make home improvements (with manufactured products), walk the dog (not manufactured, but the pooper-scooper is), etc.
The mundane is tangible; there is no hope in it. The technological is idealistic; it conveys hope for the future, whether that vision of the future arrives or not.
We like to hope, to dream. But the stock markets shouldn't be built on hope, they should be built on fundamentals. Hoping for a good economy is kind of, like, um, hoping that politicians will change their stripes and actually do what's right for the country.
Oops, I was fantasizing again. Sorry.
Hey Rick. Long time no....
Been busy learning about video. Sooo many interests, including the occasional music thing.
I fear this coming "down turn" is going to shake things up. I hope people like you will help bring folks together... so we don't burst at the seams.
I had a dream too. That Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would bring their followers together and create a new base. Waddya think?
I don't know about that team. I agree with Paul on the (un)constitutionality of war and declaring war, but once you are in battle you need to finish the job. Congress really could have done their job and stopped funding, but that's not politically advantageous or expedient.
I appreciate Paul's insistence on following the Constitution, but I think he is lacking in foreign policy savvy. We already have a president like that, and look at what's happening; they guy brought his evangelical Christian beliefs into foreign policy, which is a big mistake. (I'm a conservative Christian, and I'm saying that!)
I still don't like Dennis. In Cleveland, he's like the little kid brother that won't leave you alone. His face is everywhere, but he won't offer anything but platitudes to his constituents, and he doesn't answer questions that challenge his intentions for the country. I wish he would be honest with the local yokels that vote for him for Congress, but he won't; he already has his majority vote without working for it, so he doesn't have to make waves at home to keep his tenure in public service.
Thanks for your continued thoughts. Tho we might differ on some of the details, one thing we can probably agree on. Both Kucinich and Paul speak truth to power. They don't bow to the powers that be.
My sense is that the Nation needs a good dose of "truth to power" at this stage. I'm only "dreaming" about bringing the two constituencies together, but... it would be nice.
If Jesse Ventura weren't such a freak show when he was in power in MN, he might have thrust the 3rd party movement into the mainstream. Perot got us close; Ventura could have put us over the top.
It will probably take an off-election, off-cycle grass roots effort to get out the names of potentially solid third party candidates. But, of course, with McCain-Feingold, that counts as campaigning.
Strike up another one for the incumbents. Grrr.
So ya can't talk party, and ya can't talk candidate. I guess it's all about getting out the idea and convincing enough people that they really aren't happy with the system.
I was just thinking about Jesse Ventura the other day. Wonder what happened to him?
I still think it would be fruitful to get Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich supporters together to find common ground. They could be a powerful force.
Post a Comment