swater wrote:

] again. To them it's just the inherent problem of market
] economies, but there's got to be a way around this besides
] cumbersome planned economies. Ideas??

One problem is that the analysts aren't objective. They are too tied into everything. Its more then just the auditors doing the accounting, its the investment banks doing the IPOs. There needs to be more checks and balances in the way the financial system is organized.

I think that one could fund a non profit analyst firm. The guys are simply not allowed to own stocks or do anything but publish, and the publications are free. Like an NPR for detailed market analysis. One way to do this would be through government funding, but then it gets political. If it was totally independant, well funded, and properly staffed, then it might provide a reasonable buffer against instability.

A easier solution would be to fund a buffer organization which simply runs advertisements on financial news programs that present information counter to the grain of the market direction WHATEVER that may be. An organization that is specifically intended to identify and fight market irrationality.

Another thing, which has been discussed here before, is the need for strong economic leadership from the top. The president needs to make people FEEL confident that things are under control and moving forward, and there are things to look forward too and work for. This president is not doing this at all.

However, sometimes you just CAN'T tell whats going to happen. Look at telecom right now.

1. Will wireless eliminate the demand for pots lines?
2. What will drive domestic broadband demand? VoIP, Online Games, a solution to the copyright problem? If any, then when, exactly?
3. Will WiFi or 3G win the coming wireless wars?
4. Will asset based telecom take off? To what extent?
5. If/when 2 happens, how rapidly will the RBOCs shift to an IP based infrastructure? Will Nortel and Lucent be able to translate the IP oriented companies they bought during the boom into products that will meet this demand, or will Cisco or a startup snap up all of this stuff?
6. Will the "stupid net" actually prevail, or will demand for higher quality synchronous communications and better network security lead to something more like ATM? If the later, then how will things evolve in that direction from the existing IP based network? (Will MPLS and RSVP provide similar capability? Will the service providers prefer to give priority to packets based on who sent them rather then on what they contain?)

These are all interesting things to think about. Lots of people seem to have strong opinions, but I don't buy it. It seems like trying to figure out who was going to own the PC market in 2002 by looking at the situation in 1982. We might be able to make some technological predictions, but the social situation, and which companies will do the right things.... thats almost impossible to predict accurately.

] One problem is that the analysts aren't objective.

A big problem is the divorce of common stock holders from their voting perogative. An enormous chunk of American companies is owned by pension plans and mutual funds, both of which are primarilly comprised of average people's money. And yet these ultimate owners of the companies exert almost zero influence on the Board of Directors via their voting perogative. In both cases they are one step removed legally from actually being able to vote and so these enormous sources of capital are used without regard for their ultimate owners priorities.

A further problem is that the owners can't possibly be expected to stay abrest of the hundreds of companies they're invested in via these vehicles. Frankly, I would much rather they spent their limited political energies on government than corporate politics. But it seems that there is an area for collectivization of ownership into larger bodies that could exercise voting rights as a proxy block. Owners of pension and mutual funds, or even individual stock holders, could assign their voting rights to non-profit organizations whose job it would be to stay abrest of company politics and vote according to a stated platform. For example, Greenpeace could run a stockholders union whose policies endorse environmental responsibility, human rights, and fair play. If enough share holders assigned their voting rights to Greenpeace, the organization could install a Boardmember to a company and influence its policies and management.

Admitedly, there are a lot of problems with this idea, but at least it would begin to give millions of tiny owners a way to collectivize and exert the influence on corporate behavior they deserve. Different platforms for corporate governance could compete in the marketplace for shareowner confidence, and potentially bring a fresh voice to the table.

I believe it is a fallacy that fiduciary responsibility means the maximization of shareholder profits at the expense of all else, and I further believe that the shareholders themselves will say that loud and clear if they're only given the chance.

swater wrote:

] again. To them it's just the inherent problem of market
] economies, but there's got to be a way around this besides
] cumbersome planned economies. Ideas??

One problem is that the analysts aren't objective. They are too tied into everything. Its more then just the auditors doing the accounting, its the investment banks doing the IPOs. There needs to be more checks and balances in the way the financial system is organized.

I think that one could fund a non profit analyst firm. The guys are simply not allowed to own stocks or do anything but publish, and the publications are free. Like an NPR for detailed market analysis. One way to do this would be through government funding, but then it gets political. If it was totally independant, well funded, and properly staffed, then it might provide a reasonable buffer against instability.

A easier solution would be to fund a buffer organization which simply runs advertisements on financial news programs that present information counter to the grain of the market direction WHATEVER that may be. An organization that is specifically intended to identify and fight market irrationality.

Another thing, which has been discussed here before, is the need for strong economic leadership from the top. The president needs to make people FEEL confident that things are under control and moving forward, and there are things to look forward too and work for. This president is not doing this at all.

However, sometimes you just CAN'T tell whats going to happen. Look at telecom right now.

1. Will wireless eliminate the demand for pots lines?
2. What will drive domestic broadband demand? VoIP, Online Games, a solution to the copyright problem? If any, then when, exactly?
3. Will WiFi or 3G win the coming wireless wars?
4. Will asset based telecom take off? To what extent?
5. If/when 2 happens, how rapidly will the RBOCs shift to an IP based infrastructure? Will Nortel and Lucent be able to translate the IP oriented companies they bought during the boom into products that will meet this demand, or will Cisco or a startup snap up all of this stuff?
6. Will the "stupid net" actually prevail, or will demand for higher quality synchronous communications and better network security lead to something more like ATM? If the later, then how will things evolve in that direction from the existing IP based network? (Will MPLS and RSVP provide similar capability? Will the service providers prefer to give priority to packets based on who sent them rather then on what they contain?)

These are all interesting things to think about. Lots of people seem to have strong opinions, but I don't buy it. It seems like trying to figure out who was going to own the PC market in 2002 by looking at the situation in 1982. We might be able to make some technological predictions, but the social situation, and which companies will do the right things.... thats almost impossible to predict accurately.