michael di meglio

Real GDP Since 1930

If the gov't builds a bridge in the middle of nowhere, the economy gets a perk until it is realized that the bridge did not add to productivity of the economy and the extra money that was spent will simply increase the money supply. This increase leads to inflation. During the Great War, productivity actually increase because of the needed infrastructure to defend the nation. The Viet Nam war did not increase infrastructure thus productivity was zip. This led to inflation post 68. We had a productivity gain from the personal computer in post 82. This technology productivity actually fueled a ten year recovery. The bull market post 93 to 2000 was supported by the communications companies i.e yahoo, amazon and the gazillion of dot companies. Since 2000 we have been on what I see as a downer from a sugar high. The question now is from which bottle will our next genie come from?

Our communications is in place. Our bio database is doubling every six months or so. We have what I call a mature information technology. History has shown that industrial technology will always follow information technology. The printing press introduced the greatest information revolution from which the industrial revolution was born. This industrial revolution brought about the present information revolution. Now we are about to enter the greatest industrial revolution to date. What form will this industrial revolution take? My guess is that our present transportation system will undergo a make over. Motors and generators of practical sizes from automobile motors to the great generators at the utilitie companies. Our entire electrical distribution system will need a makeover. The key element in all this will be "superconductors". The productivity gains will propel our economy for the next thirty years. "Yes Virginia, there is a power genie".


On Feb 04 12:02 PM Robert H. Heath wrote:

> The author makes a good point that the financial press tends to focus
> on the "annual rate" of quarterly changes in real GDP, which is useful
> for detecting inflection points in the economy's trend, but risks
> making the trend seem more volatile than it really is.
>
> Dave Wrixon's question "What is Real GDP in the first place?" confuses,
> I think, production (which is what GDP measures) with investment.
> If a farmer grows a bushel of corn, which I subsequently consume,
> is that a "wealth-creating exercise?" Most people would probably
> agree that the farmer made a contribution to output (production)
> but the nation's stock of productive capital has not increased.<br/>
>
> In the calculation of GDP, production MUST equal consumption (with
> adjustments for net inventory changes, investment and external trade).
> In a nutshell, if somebody willingly pays for goods or services in
> an arms-length transaction, that's consumption. Hence the provision
> of the goods or services is "production". The vast majority of what
> counts as production/consumption does not directly increase the nation's
> tangible capital stock. This includes the work done by lawyers in
> a civil trial, the teenager selling tee shirts at the local Gap store,
> and as above, the farmer growing corn. All these activities DO sustain
> the nation's stock of labor, which I have found is generally pretty
> important to the 140 million of us in the labor force and our dependents.
>
>
> I, for one, prefer that the national income accounts are kept on
> this basis.
>
> The former Soviet Union used to arrive at its national income accounts
> without the benefit of arms-length transactions to validate the worth
> of what was being produced. If the Politburo decided that 50,000
> harvester-combines would be produced and sold at a price decided
> by an "arbitrary decision in a peoples committee" then that was the
> value of that output. As it turned out, the production, and the
> productive capacity, of the former soviet states was wildly overstated,
> with some memorable consequences.
>
> The question whether we have too many frivolous lawsuits in the US
> is a different topic
>

7 Reasons to Stick With Syntax-Brillian

Mmmm at the time of the writing, it was $4.10 and now (June 29th 08) is it $0.53. I wonder if the seven reasons are still intact. In my case, I jumped in at $0.55 so it is not too bad. I'm hoping that the figures that will be released soon will kick it up. It might kick it down. I think that the up is larger than the down. That is why I went long on this issue. Good luck to the longs