Robert Myers wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:44 am, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>"Robert Myers" <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>news:c53141e1-0fc8-4351-b4d3-36afc071e992@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>On Oct 9, 9:47 am, chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 8, 10:12 am, chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Gosh, you are smart. Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out
>>>>>that
>>>>>AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the
>>>>>best
>>>>>interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they
>>>>>have a
>>>>>benevolent streak toward bankers.
>>
>>>>There are plenty of people who would agree that cor****ate
>>>>management,
>>>>often acting on the advice of outside consultants, frequently do
>>>>not
>>>>act in the best interests of shareholders.
>>
>>>So? The fact that things are "sometimes wrong" is evidence that
>>>something is "wrong" with this deal?
>>
>>>Sorry, but it's not.
>>
>>Now *you're* an expert? I don't think you pay attention to what you
>>write. You were sarcastic that I had the nerve to question AMD's all-
>>knowing management. I pointed out that the kind of criticism that
>>both I and the blogger offered is fairly common. Whether it's
>>accurate criticism of this deal or not is beside the point. As usual,
>>everyone who doesn't agree with you and cheer for AMD is an idiot--at
>>least from your point of view.
>>
>>If you already knew what the blogger said or if you had some
>>subatantive response, you didn't say so. Instead, you did what you
>>usually do: ridicule and bluster.
>>
>>Robert.
>>
>>Silly me. I guessed that this was an effort for AMD to survive as a
>>semi-fabless organization, regardless of the statement of a previous
>>ceo "real men own fabs". But Jerry Sanders is long gone from AMD and
>>fabs are extremely expensive.
>>
>>If I ask nice would all you guys quit fighting about who is smarter
>>etc? Me, I'm glad I didn't buy AMD at 40 in 2006....
>>Anyway, the bickering is sort of offputting.
>>
>
> That's disappointing from you. I had no intention of responding to
> Chris' post. I offered a different perspective on what was going on
> from someone other than me and got the usual "You hate AMD" response.
> In actual fact, at this point, I could care less.
>
> What I have cared about is the partisan environment here that has shut
> off differing points of view. In actual fact, I have no idea what the
> future holds for AMD or for Intel, although I have been publicly
> pessimistic about AMD for a long time--as have many others.
>
> Chris, Robert, and Keith may be very personable in the flesh. That
> has not been experience of them here. Anyone with half a brain cell,
> might have that half a brain cell flickering right know to question
> the free market mantra of the University of Chicago. In fact, knees
> are beginning to buckle even there. It's not so much that people have
> some set of beliefs or other about free markets or companies or a
> particular technology. It's the readiness to disparage other points
> of view as unworthy of consideration that is, if nothing else, a very
> bad habit for technical people to fall into. I'll be offputting from
> now until doomsday about mob thinking.
>
> Robert.
>
OK, here we go with tbird. Don't blame the current finance fiasco on
"free markets". After all the soviets and the chinese had to adopt them
to have any semblance of a working economy. You do remember the
collectivization of the kulaks and the great leap forward? Rather it is
the result of bad assumptions carried to extremes, augmented with
government interference in the form of fannie and freddie and the desire
of politicians to bring the joy of home owner****p to everyone.
In many ways it was cross between LTCM's brilliant nobel prize
mathematical models and the dotcom bubble of 2001 only on a much larger
scale. Why rational rating agencies would assume that house prices
would never go down in the face of historical evidence to the contrary
is a mystery to me. And the companies and employees who went along and
made the loans have been punished by the loss of their investment,
including all the smaller banks encouraged by the government to buy
fanny and freddy preferred stock.
http://dailybriefing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/09/08/fannies-preferred-bloodbath/
Note that fannie was a "GSE", and had many politicians and ex
politicians on the payroll in one way or another.
But that is outside the scope of this newsgroup and a sure way to finish
it off. So I will not be responding further on this issue.
As for " you need to put your IBM stuff away", I don't understand what
you are getting at. Could you explain?
As for AMD being a waste of time and talent, if it wasn't for AMD we
would all be typing on Itaniums. So they have made contributions in the
past and they might again, if only to keep Intel on the straight and
narrow. And if people want to invest their money in AMD or their fab
divisions, who are we to say they shouldn't? Should some chip czar in
Wa****ngton determine which companies we or others are allowed to invest
in? How much in campaign contributions will it take to get the
venture capital?
I guess the degeneration of the group is a symptom of the fact that
client systems are commodities and of little technical interest these
days. At least to me.
Don't worry, Obama will probably win, and the Democrats will have total
control. The last couple times this happened it wasn't any prettier
than when the Republicans had total control.
del
|
