Did anyone notice....Apple stock grew during arguably one the largest downturns in the American economy?... Did anyone also notice Apple's current P/E of 12?... Did anyone notice that Apple took home 92% of smartphone profits in the last year... Clearly, Apple is not prepared to weather this dip in China's economy.
Apple is well-suited to weather whatever economic crapstorm is ahead of us. I'd wager many of the companies whose stock can be purchased on the various stock exchanges are in danger of going out of business if there is another major downturn lasting more than 3-6 months. The entire global economy is a house of cards thanks to loose monetary and Keynesian policies.
3. Look at the graph of sales, there is no impact at all from the financial crisis. That trend line was completely intact even as the economy was ravaged.
$200,000,000,000 cash would be plenty to build manufactories from scratch, but the question remains about the future efficacy of that currency.
Hard to take your zombie apocalypse fantasies seriously. You forget the golden rule: people are lazy.
This means that the rate of change and upheaval is limited by natural human inertia.
It is this fact that always escapes doomsday theorists, all the way from Nostradomas to you. :smokey:
Actually, not so sure that Chinese makers are in that good posture, they'Re selling to the lower fringe of the middle class in China; those will be hit the hardest by the coming slowdown, not the top end that buy the Iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
In order to allow an increase, a software update would be required - and all the mining nodes in the world would have to agree to that update and start using the software. The miners have no incentive to do this, since it would destroy trust and therefore destroy all value in the bitcoin economy - every vested interest that is built on top of bitcoin would fight it.
You could never get a consensus big enough to implement the change.
Bitcoin is worth nothing if you don't give a shit about it and think its crap (like most people in the world do), or can't convert it to goods or other currencies. Because, lets face it, they won't all collapse no matter what bitcoin proponents think. You can bank on that...
$200,000,000,000 cash would be plenty to build manufactories from scratch, but the question remains about the future efficacy of that currency.
Hard to take your zombie apocalypse fantasies seriously. You forget the golden rule: people are lazy.
This means that the rate of change and upheaval is limited by natural human inertia.
It is this fact that always escapes doomsday theorists, all the way from Nostradomas to you. :smokey:
Your point about inertia is important. In understanding movement in stock (for that matter, any asset) prices, it is critical to understand the distinction between average and marginal investors: it is always the marginal investor, i.e., the small proportion that goes out there buys or sells on any given day, that moves prices.
Most of AAPL just stayed pat in the average investor's portfolio last week. As it well should.
The motivation and the horizon of the two types of investors are often not the same.
The entire global economy is a house of cards thanks to loose monetary and Keynesian policies.
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense, propagated by Ayn Randian (and Rand Paulian) type economists.
They've been going on about this for eight years now, yet the sheer weight of empirical evidence stacked against them has never changed their minds. The global economy has grown impressively, created great companies and products, produced hundreds of millions of jobs, created great wealth, and seen low inflation and interest rates during this period of 'loose monetary and Keynesian' policies you bemoan.
You all have wandered into the realm of complete and irreversible discredit at this point.
1. I wasn't talking about Samsung, which is why I said "some of Apple's competitors" rather than all. None of those other companies make a profit, so they are going to start losing more money if sales drop.
2. Fair point.
3. Look at the graph of sales, there is no impact at all from the financial crisis. That trend line was completely intact even as the economy was ravaged.
1. there is no other global competitor other than Samsung. LG is the only other non-Chinese top smartphone maker among the top global smartphone makers, but its marketshare still a mid single-digit. Like I said earlier, other than those Chinese domestic smartphone makers who are posed to gain even in slow economy, "some of Apple's competitors" don't matter at all at this point.
3. (a) Apple's sales during the last macro economic crisis were tiny and there is no pre-crisis sales data to help determine if Apple's sales is immune to economic downturn (b) China's share of Apple's global iPhones sales is significant today (about 50+% today), especially compared to 2008 and 2009. Their operating segment "Asia-Pacific sales" first didn't even appear in their 10K's until 2011; "Greater China" until 2012. (c) Further, the global smartphone market grew from 139M in 2008 to 969M in 2013, or about 800% (d) China's smartphone market actually shrunk for the first time last quarter.
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense, propagated by Ayn Randian (and Rand Paulian) type economists.
They've been going on about this for eight years now, yet the sheer weight of empirical evidence stacked against them has never changed their minds. The global economy has grown impressively, created great companies and products, produced hundreds of millions of jobs, created great wealth, and seen low inflation and interest rates during this period of 'loose monetary and Keynesian' policies you bemoan.
You all have wandered into the realm of complete and irreversible discredit at this point.
Say what? At least throw the ridiculous insults at the right target. Ayn Rand has nothing to do with it. She wasn't an economist, she formulated a complete philosophy (Objectivism) based on logic and her life experience. I assume you meant to throw your firebombs at Austrian economic theory and if you are a Paul Krugman acolyte, you are in some serious need of deprogramming.
Say what? At least throw the ridiculous insults at the right target. Ayn Rand has nothing to do with it. She wasn't an economist, she formulated a complete philosophy (Objectivism) based on logic and her life experience. I assume you meant to throw your firebombs at Austrian economic theory and if you are a Paul Krugman acolyte, you are in some serious need of deprogramming.
1) You really should parse sentences better. Where did I say that Ayn Rand (or Rand Paul) were economists!?
2) Why don't you tell us -- unless you are, by profession, an economist -- what the source of your bold prediction authority is?
3) Please spare us the lazy 'Krugman' reference. He's always your go-to bogeyman. (Although, I happen to think he's a pretty darn good economist to the extent that he relies on actual empirical evidence, not fantasy).
Your point about inertia is important. In understanding movement in stock (for that matter, any asset) prices, it is critical to understand the distinction between average and marginal investors: it is always the marginal investor, i.e., the small proportion that goes out there buys or sells on any given day, that moves prices.
Most of AAPL just stayed pat in the average investor's portfolio last week. As it well should.
The motivation and the horizon of the two types of investors are often not the same.
1) You really should parse sentences better. Where did I say that Ayn Rand (or Rand Paul) were economists!?
2) Why don't you tell us -- unless you are, by profession, an economist -- what the source of your bold prediction authority is?
3) Please spare us the lazy 'Krugman' reference. He's always your go-to bogeyman. (Although, I happen to think he's a pretty darn good economist to the extent that he relies on actual empirical evidence, not fantasy).
Trying to untangle these posts to address anything coherent in them is enough to reduce anyone to an utter cynic, however I will try to remain cheerful.
Happily, Krugman's largely sloppy work is easily refuted.
Really? What does you source say about Krugman's most recent op-ed on why debt can be a very good thing? What is mises.org's argument that persuades you?
Please don't lazily give me a link. Explain how you understand it so that we can perhaps better understand your worldview.
Really? What does you source say about Krugman's most recent op-ed on why debt can be a very good thing? What is mises.org's argument that persuades you?
Please don't lazily give me a link. Explain how you understand it so that we can perhaps better understand your worldview.
You'd be better served by not lazily ignoring information containing facts, which seems to explain your daft support of politically-driven progressive shill Krugman.
$18 trillion in US debt is a good thing? How'd that magical thinking work out for Greece?
You'd be better served by not lazily ignoring information containing facts, which seems to explain your daft support of politically-driven progressive shill Krugman.
$18 trillion in US debt is a good thing? How'd that magical thinking work out for Greece?
Your response is such a non-sequitur. And as always, when pressed for specifics, you always divert the topic and throw out platitudes. "$18 trillion in debt"? What the heck does that mean, independent of the size of the GDP and forecasted trajectory of the deficit? Just throw out some big numbers and you guys expect to won over the low-information types who are impressed by big numbers.
For example, Apple has $55B in debt now, compared to zero five years ago. Is that bad? Good?
And, please: I could care less about Krugman, let alone be a "daft supporter" of his. All you have are poorly formed views based on zero empirical evidence from questionable sources, and you pass it off as bold economics predictions. Do you even have a degree in economics, to be able to make the forecasts you are making?
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense, propagated by Ayn Randian (and Rand Paulian) type economists.
They've been going on about this for eight years now, yet the sheer weight of empirical evidence stacked against them has never changed their minds. The global economy has grown impressively, created great companies and products, produced hundreds of millions of jobs, created great wealth, and seen low inflation and interest rates during this period of 'loose monetary and Keynesian' policies you bemoan.
You all have wandered into the realm of complete and irreversible discredit at this point.
Yes but the world economy has grown despite Keynesian policies, which are and have been a tremendous anchor on said progress.
Fact of the matter is Keynes panicked after the depression/war in the same way that Bush did after 9/11. His reasoning is identical to what brought us the TSA, thinking that only the government (rulers) thru unusual and intrusive means can protect us.
Crediting Keynesian based economic policies with the growth of the 20th century, is like crediting TSA with airplanes not exploding. They are just the same waste of everyone's time, managed by corrupt authority and backed only by hysteria.
Comments
Did anyone notice....Apple stock grew during arguably one the largest downturns in the American economy?... Did anyone also notice Apple's current P/E of 12?... Did anyone notice that Apple took home 92% of smartphone profits in the last year... Clearly, Apple is not prepared to weather this dip in China's economy.
Apple is well-suited to weather whatever economic crapstorm is ahead of us. I'd wager many of the companies whose stock can be purchased on the various stock exchanges are in danger of going out of business if there is another major downturn lasting more than 3-6 months. The entire global economy is a house of cards thanks to loose monetary and Keynesian policies.
What I'm seeing there is a spike after every new iPhone. No surprises at all.
$200,000,000,000 cash would be plenty to build manufactories from scratch, but the question remains about the future efficacy of that currency.
Usually there is a flight to quality when the market gets slapped around. Apple certainly is nothing if not a quality stock.
Maybe during the worst of the storm, Apple will surprise us with some breakthrough product we haven't even considered yet.
Happened once before when a certain person said Apple was going to innovate itself out of its crisis.
Hard to take your zombie apocalypse fantasies seriously. You forget the golden rule: people are lazy.
This means that the rate of change and upheaval is limited by natural human inertia.
It is this fact that always escapes doomsday theorists, all the way from Nostradomas to you. :smokey:
Actually, not so sure that Chinese makers are in that good posture, they'Re selling to the lower fringe of the middle class in China; those will be hit the hardest by the coming slowdown, not the top end that buy the Iphone.
In order to allow an increase, a software update would be required - and all the mining nodes in the world would have to agree to that update and start using the software. The miners have no incentive to do this, since it would destroy trust and therefore destroy all value in the bitcoin economy - every vested interest that is built on top of bitcoin would fight it.
You could never get a consensus big enough to implement the change.
Bitcoin is worth nothing if you don't give a shit about it and think its crap (like most people in the world do), or can't convert it to goods or other currencies. Because, lets face it, they won't all collapse no matter what bitcoin proponents think. You can bank on that...
I did.
But I am so overweighted on AAPL that I will probably stop.
Your point about inertia is important. In understanding movement in stock (for that matter, any asset) prices, it is critical to understand the distinction between average and marginal investors: it is always the marginal investor, i.e., the small proportion that goes out there buys or sells on any given day, that moves prices.
Most of AAPL just stayed pat in the average investor's portfolio last week. As it well should.
The motivation and the horizon of the two types of investors are often not the same.
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense, propagated by Ayn Randian (and Rand Paulian) type economists.
They've been going on about this for eight years now, yet the sheer weight of empirical evidence stacked against them has never changed their minds. The global economy has grown impressively, created great companies and products, produced hundreds of millions of jobs, created great wealth, and seen low inflation and interest rates during this period of 'loose monetary and Keynesian' policies you bemoan.
You all have wandered into the realm of complete and irreversible discredit at this point.
1. I wasn't talking about Samsung, which is why I said "some of Apple's competitors" rather than all. None of those other companies make a profit, so they are going to start losing more money if sales drop.
2. Fair point.
3. Look at the graph of sales, there is no impact at all from the financial crisis. That trend line was completely intact even as the economy was ravaged.
@e1618978 : Sure,
1. there is no other global competitor other than Samsung. LG is the only other non-Chinese top smartphone maker among the top global smartphone makers, but its marketshare still a mid single-digit. Like I said earlier, other than those Chinese domestic smartphone makers who are posed to gain even in slow economy, "some of Apple's competitors" don't matter at all at this point.
3. (a) Apple's sales during the last macro economic crisis were tiny and there is no pre-crisis sales data to help determine if Apple's sales is immune to economic downturn (b) China's share of Apple's global iPhones sales is significant today (about 50+% today), especially compared to 2008 and 2009. Their operating segment "Asia-Pacific sales" first didn't even appear in their 10K's until 2011; "Greater China" until 2012. (c) Further, the global smartphone market grew from 139M in 2008 to 969M in 2013, or about 800% (d) China's smartphone market actually shrunk for the first time last quarter.
Say what? At least throw the ridiculous insults at the right target. Ayn Rand has nothing to do with it. She wasn't an economist, she formulated a complete philosophy (Objectivism) based on logic and her life experience. I assume you meant to throw your firebombs at Austrian economic theory and if you are a Paul Krugman acolyte, you are in some serious need of deprogramming.
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/huffpos-11-myths-about-the-fed-refuted/
1) You really should parse sentences better. Where did I say that Ayn Rand (or Rand Paul) were economists!?
2) Why don't you tell us -- unless you are, by profession, an economist -- what the source of your bold prediction authority is?
3) Please spare us the lazy 'Krugman' reference. He's always your go-to bogeyman. (Although, I happen to think he's a pretty darn good economist to the extent that he relies on actual empirical evidence, not fantasy).
Yeah but the way I said it, had way more style.
Trying to untangle these posts to address anything coherent in them is enough to reduce anyone to an utter cynic, however I will try to remain cheerful.
Happily, Krugman's largely sloppy work is easily refuted.
https://mises.org/library/fact-checking-paul-krugmans-claim-be-right-about-everything
But mine had more panache.
Really? What does you source say about Krugman's most recent op-ed on why debt can be a very good thing? What is mises.org's argument that persuades you?
Please don't lazily give me a link. Explain how you understand it so that we can perhaps better understand your worldview.
You'd be better served by not lazily ignoring information containing facts, which seems to explain your daft support of politically-driven progressive shill Krugman.
$18 trillion in US debt is a good thing? How'd that magical thinking work out for Greece?
You'd be better served by not lazily ignoring information containing facts, which seems to explain your daft support of politically-driven progressive shill Krugman.
$18 trillion in US debt is a good thing? How'd that magical thinking work out for Greece?
Your response is such a non-sequitur. And as always, when pressed for specifics, you always divert the topic and throw out platitudes. "$18 trillion in debt"? What the heck does that mean, independent of the size of the GDP and forecasted trajectory of the deficit? Just throw out some big numbers and you guys expect to won over the low-information types who are impressed by big numbers.
For example, Apple has $55B in debt now, compared to zero five years ago. Is that bad? Good?
And, please: I could care less about Krugman, let alone be a "daft supporter" of his. All you have are poorly formed views based on zero empirical evidence from questionable sources, and you pass it off as bold economics predictions. Do you even have a degree in economics, to be able to make the forecasts you are making?
Yes but the world economy has grown despite Keynesian policies, which are and have been a tremendous anchor on said progress.
Fact of the matter is Keynes panicked after the depression/war in the same way that Bush did after 9/11. His reasoning is identical to what brought us the TSA, thinking that only the government (rulers) thru unusual and intrusive means can protect us.
Crediting Keynesian based economic policies with the growth of the 20th century, is like crediting TSA with airplanes not exploding. They are just the same waste of everyone's time, managed by corrupt authority and backed only by hysteria.