Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=Hatfield]Also, Moore’s Law is in its last days, unless something happens with quantum computing. The current fab processes are approaching their technological limits. And on the airlink side we’re pretty much at the Shannon limit already. There aren’t any more large wireless spectral efficiency gains to be made anymore.
At this point it’s looking like a race to the bottom. Dunno what else to do with my QCOM shares tho. I keep waiting for that real estate correction, but not much pencils out in the areas I’d want to buy.[/quote]I’m not sure we’re near current fab process limit. According to Intel’s Tic-Toc timeline, they’re good for at least a few more cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock
Although, in 2009 Intel’s former CEO Paul S. Otellini was quoted as saying that silicon is in its last decade as the base material of the CPU, with replacement options such as Indium antimonide or optical computing. If Intel CEO stated that in 2009, that means Intel have been working on Indium antimonide or optical computing at least 5+ years ago, getting ready for the transition to the next process.
ParticipantThis is not surprising to me at all. I have been predicting this for awhile now. Especially when there was a change of guard from Jacobs to Mollenkopf. Mollenkopf came from QCT, so it’s not surprising that he’s focused on chip.
I’ve also been saying don’t count out the 800 lb gorilla in the room (Intel). A couple years ago, people just laugh at me, but just look at where they are today. At IFA this year, most of the tablets that were announced were based on Intel, not QCOM. I think QCOM is being squeezed from the top by INTC and from the bottom by MediaTek. They’re walking a pretty tight rope. They don’t have the cash cow of server chip like Intel or the cheap labor like MediaTek. It will be interesting to see how this play out in the next few years.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN][quote=The-Shoveler]”when the SHTF moment does occur”
They will have learned a lot from the last time and be much better able to mask the issues the next time IMO.
Although IMO they pretty much knew exactly how it was going to play out in 2008 and it was planned for as well.[/quote]Exactly.[/quote]
Does that mean the stimulus and Fed policies were successes?[/quote]Depends on what you consider success. But definitely, don’t fight the fed.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]”when the SHTF moment does occur”
They will have learned a lot from the last time and be much better able to mask the issues the next time IMO.
Although IMO they pretty much knew exactly how it was going to play out in 2008 and it was planned for as well.[/quote]Exactly.
Participant[quote=CA renter]It doesn’t matter whether or not the underlying conditions are sustainable? Of course, these conditions can last far longer than most skeptics would think imaginable, but I’d venture to guess that when the SHTF moment does occur, the duration and extent of the manipulations will be mirrored in the final aftermath, and then some.[/quote]It doesn’t matter whether or not the underlying conditions are sustainable or not. It doesn’t change my statement, which states that we didn’t have a crash in 2001. Which is why I ask him why he picked 2001. If today is 2001, I would be quite happy.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN]CAR, you sound exactly like those AM talk show hosts on the right, except, you just replace liberal with conservative. I find it quite amusing actually that you vilify conservatives just like those AM talk show hosts vilify the liberal. I’m neither a liberal or a conservative, so I get a good chuckle watching both extremes vilify each other.[/quote]
I believe that our two-party system has been structured in a way that best enables the PTB to manipulate the masses. Party affiliations don’t mean much to me. I vote for (or against) individuals from either party, and am extremely conservative in some ways, while extremely liberal in others. I’m not vilifying anyone, just noting some differences that keep popping up over and over again.
FWIW, I can be extremely intolerant, too. Don’t get me started on criminals who prey on innocent people…I have zero empathy when it comes to people who do that.[/quote]Here’s the difference between empathy and sympathy: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy. I don’t believe most people who were never poor can really understand how poor people feel or what they’re going through. So, I don’t believe most of them are empathetic to poor people. I believe most of them are sympathetic, but not empathetic. Just because you vote to take other people’s money to create these social safety net doesn’t make you empathetic. Empathy goes beyond sympathy and I don’t believe most people, from either side are there.
You stated that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. But you say you’re both liberal and conservative. So, are you more or less empathetic, since you say you’re both? Don’t you think most people in America are the same as you? So, to say liberal are more empathetic than conservative doesn’t make any sense. Whether you think calling conservative non-empathetic is vilifying or not, that’s up to you. My point is, I’ve heard AM talk show hosts talking about liberal the same way you talk about conservative. You and them make it seem people are so black and white instead of acknowledging that the majority are grey. Such as yourself as an example.
ParticipantCAR, you sound exactly like those AM talk show hosts on the right, except, you just replace liberal with conservative. I find it quite amusing actually that you vilify conservatives just like those AM talk show hosts vilify the liberal. I’m neither a liberal or a conservative, so I get a good chuckle watching both extremes vilify each other.
Participant[quote=CA renter]It didn’t crash because they unleashed the toxic mortgages when things started to slow down as a result of the recession.[/quote]It doesn’t matter why it didn’t crash. My point was, it didn’t crash.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=spdrun]Housing is shaky as it is. A generalized slowdown affects general confidence and put the brakes on it.
It sure wasn’t growing much around 2001-2. Last time, housing affected everything else. This time, it might be the other way around.[/quote]
But it didn’t crash. It wasn’t event flat. So, why did you pick 2001? I wouldn’t mind if today is like 2001.[/quote]Actually, home sales and prices did decline when the stock market bubble burst, but the Fed was quick to manipulate rates and restart a new bubble in housing. Housing prices were already getting overvalued in 2001. I think spdrun chose 2001 because that was the bursting of the bubble just prior to the 2007/2008 bursting of the credit/housing bubble. We still have a credit bubble because of all the manipulations, IMHO, it’s just a matter of which assets are most affected by the surplus credit.
Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GFDEGDQ188S,GFDGDPA188S,FYOIGDA188S,
Margin debt:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTcXj0xodULbgAzXuJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzYWU2MzNxBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM5YWI4MWQ0ZWRmMDVjZDkyMzg0N2ZhY2VlZmM1NTg3OARncG9zAzEwBGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dmargin%2Bdebt%2Bchart%2B2014%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D10&w=908&h=662&imgurl=www.pgm-blog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FNYSE-margin-debt-SPX-since-1995.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fgold-and-precious-metals%2F2014%2F01%2Fhighlights-of-the-week-of-january-6-2014-2571672.html&size=73.9KB&name=Highlights+of+the+week+of+January+6%2C+%3Cb%3E2014%3C%2Fb%3E&p=margin+debt+chart+2014&oid=9ab81d4edf05cd923847faceefc55878&fr2=&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&tt=Highlights+of+the+week+of+January+6%2C+%3Cb%3E2014%3C%2Fb%3E&b=0&ni=200&no=10&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=13f5akt84&sigb=14m3ogd6r&sigi=12fcicua4&sigt=11g74vdib&sign=11g74vdib&.crumb=gZ2U63/s4yQ&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla
Credit Market Instruments:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDO/%5B/quote%5D
RE in SD did not crash in 2001. It crashed in 2006-2008. That’s the fact.Participant[quote=spdrun]If you think about it, it wasn’t such a hot year for NY-area real estate. Nor SFBA property. ;)[/quote]Who cares about NY or SF? All I care about is SD.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Housing is shaky as it is. A generalized slowdown affects general confidence and put the brakes on it.
It sure wasn’t growing much around 2001-2. Last time, housing affected everything else. This time, it might be the other way around.[/quote]
But it didn’t crash. It wasn’t event flat. So, why did you pick 2001? I wouldn’t mind if today is like 2001.Participant[quote=spdrun]Can’t lower rates below zero, QE4 is politically improbable at this point (yay for both GOP houses!), oil is crashing, and China is headed for a mess. Seems like the ECB isn’t so keen on QE either.
2001 to 2008 was seven years. It’s been six years since the last mess…[/quote]Why did you pick 2001? Housing didn’t crash in 2001. It crashed around 1991.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Sure you can — with a general recession reducing all risk assets 🙂 Basically, if Europe, Russia, China, and energy firms lead the way down.[/quote]If you see a crash, that mean prior to the crash, you were in a bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the crash.
As for your reasons, lets just wait and see. I don’t see it happening. I central banks around the world lowering rates and doing everything they can to keep the party going again.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Here’s hoping for another crash. Crashes are more fun than bubbles.[/quote]Can’t have one without the other.
-
AuthorPosts
