john@bby-bc.UUCP (10/20/87)
I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... john
brad@looking.UUCP (10/21/87)
In article <167@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: > > I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over > 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 > (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing > we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... > >john If you haven't noticed, the other world markets (including Toronto) have all dropped in a similar manner to that of New York, although some of them took two days instead of one. All without free trade. Our economy is already tied very tightly to the US, and it's silly to prentend that it isn't, or that it could be disassociated. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tubman@sask.UUCP (10/21/87)
In article <167@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: > > I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over > 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 > (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing > we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... > >john All the stock markets in the world (except, apparently, Egypt's) took a beating. London, Tokyo, Hong Kong (since closed), Singapore, Sydney, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver... Too bad our economy is tied so tightly to the planet Earth's. Jim Tubman The Computer-Guided Diagnosis Project University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0W0 Canada {ihnp4,alberta,utcsri}!sask!skvlsi!tubman
taras@utgpu.UUCP (10/22/87)
I just wish people would stop attributing too much significance to what the stock market is doing on any given day. It is interesting as a study of herd instinct, but that is about it. What is more interesting are the statistics released by the US Department of Commerce and Statistics Canada. What is more important is the value of the Canadian dollar. -- Taras Pryjma uucp: taras@gpu.utcs bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821 Fear is never boring. hmmm. hmmmm. YEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn those trap doors! Yup. Fear is never boring.
john@bby-bc.UUCP (10/23/87)
In article <912@sask.UUCP>, tubman@sask.UUCP (Jim Tubman) writes: > In article <167@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: > > > > I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over > > 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 > > (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... > > > >john > > All the stock markets in the world (except, apparently, Egypt's) took a > beating. London, Tokyo, Hong Kong (since closed), Singapore, Sydney, > Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver... Perhaps it's changed since I lst looked but Tokyo hardly felt it - while the US DOW was dropping 20% the Nisei DOW dropped only 2%. > Too bad our economy is tied so tightly to the planet Earth's. > No - too bad so many countries tie themselves so tightly to the US economic wagon. During the great depression Canada suffered a lot more than the US. Economists who have studied this claim that it was because %40 of our raw material exports were to the US and of course when they couldn't buy we were in trouble. Nowadays the figure is much higher (~60% I think) so we would suffer even more. Why then are we trying to hitch our wagon even tighter to a country which is predicted to enter a serious recession within two to three years?
john@bby-bc.UUCP (10/23/87)
In article <1987Oct21.225842.18695@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, taras@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (T. Pryjma) writes: > > I just wish people would stop attributing too much significance to what > the stock market is doing on any given day. But people do attribute a lot of significance to 20% drops, and so in a self-fulfilling fashion it *is* important. . . > What is more important is the value of the Canadian dollar. I think it dropped something over one penny on Tuesday.
john@bby-bc.UUCP (10/23/87)
> > I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over > > 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 > > (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing > > we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... > > > >john > > If you haven't noticed, the other world markets (including Toronto) have > all dropped in a similar manner to that of New York, although some of them From what I read none were hit quite as badly as the US. > took two days instead of one. All without free trade. Our economy is Well at least their lack of free trade gave them a couple of days grace. > already tied very tightly to the US, and it's silly to prentend that it > isn't, or that it could be disassociated. Silly because you say so? Why can't we weaken the connection? You mean if the US just suddenly disappeared Canada would inexorably disappear too? The politicians have said we have this problem: 80% of our trade is with the US and every time their economy twitches ours shakes. So then they come up with a "solution": Lets tie our economy even tighter to the US economy - that'll solve all our problems! Uhhhh sorry! If I live next to a noisy neighbour I dont solve the problem by moving even closer. Regardless of how one might feel about the US itself it is *ludicrous* to try and make our economy stable by tieing it all to one other country, *any* country. The government has tried to claim that people who are against the free trade agreement with the US are cowards. I say the reverse is true. It is the cowards way out to say that the best solution to our problems is to merge with the american economy and hope that is some sort of panacea. What *would* be courageous would be to strike out and forge ties with other countries; to make Canadians so good at what they do that people come to us *asking* for our goods and services; to make us independent of any one country, economically and politically. To stand on our own feet for crying out loud. john
dave@lsuc.UUCP (10/23/87)
In article <167@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP writes: > > I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over > 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 > (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing > we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... We're tied to the US whether we like it or not. That has little to do with the free trade agreement -- already the vast majority of our trade is with the US and there's little prospect of that changing, given the demographcs, geography and culture. Anyway, you can't judge anything on one day's price changes. Tokyo & Sydney are half a day off anyway. Over the week, all the major markets will likely come out the same. (Yes, I have an interest in this... we lost a bundle over the past few days...) David Sherman Toronto -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please...
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/23/87)
In article <167@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP writes: > > I see this morning's Globe&Mail says the NYSE's Dow composite dropped over > 20% yesterday with most other world markets indicators dropping about %10 > (except for the Japanese who only dropped %2). Sure is a good thing > we're going to tie our economy so tightly to the US, isn't it..... Personally speaking, I'd be all for free(r) trade with the Japanese. However, if you think that the CAW and other unions are upset over the trade deal with the US, imagine their reaction to the above suggestion. I'd also be quite happy with closer ties to the EEC. Problem is that was tried before (by Trudeau, no less) with no success. J.B. Robinson
brad@looking.UUCP (10/24/87)
In article <170@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: > >Silly because you say so? Why can't we weaken the connection? You mean >if the US just suddenly disappeared Canada would inexorably disappear too? Close to it. Not that it's likely that the US will just disappear unless Comrade G pushes his button. Enough of his missles are aimed here that it wouldn't matter, anyway. >The politicians have said we have this problem: > 80% of our trade is with the US and every time their economy > twitches ours shakes. >So then they come up with a "solution": > Lets tie our economy even tighter to the US economy - that'll > solve all our problems! >Uhhhh sorry! If I live next to a noisy neighbour I dont solve the problem >by moving even closer. If it were noise you were talking about. While I don't think free trade is billed as a "solution" to the problem you specify above, it seems that a closely tied economy would then "twitch" when the US economy twitches. > >Regardless of how one might feel about the US itself it is *ludicrous* to >try and make our economy stable by tieing it all to one other country, *any* >country. > >What *would* be courageous would be to strike out and forge ties with >other countries; to make Canadians so good at what they do that people >come to us *asking* for our goods and services; to make us independent >of any one country, economically and politically. To stand on our own >feet for crying out loud. > >john Yes, you're right. And strong trade barriers would be just the way to set this sort of thing up [8-)]. Who's being ludicrous? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
pkern@utcsri.UUCP (10/26/87)
In article <1071@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <170@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: >> >>What *would* be courageous would be to strike out and forge ties with >>other countries; to make Canadians so good at what they do that people >>come to us *asking* for our goods and services; to make us independent >>of any one country, economically and politically. To stand on our own >>feet for crying out loud. > >Yes, you're right. And strong trade barriers would be just the way to set >this sort of thing up [8-)]. Who's being ludicrous? Ludicrous? Isn't that exactly what worked for Japan?
brad@looking.UUCP (10/26/87)
In article <5576@utcsri.UUCP> pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern) writes: >In article <1071@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>In article <170@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: >>> >>>What *would* be courageous would be to strike out and forge ties with >>>other countries; to make Canadians so good at what they do that people >>>come to us *asking* for our goods and services; to make us independent >>>of any one country, economically and politically. To stand on our own >>>feet for crying out loud. >> >>Yes, you're right. And strong trade barriers would be just the way to set >>this sort of thing up [8-)]. Who's being ludicrous? > > >Ludicrous? >Isn't that exactly what worked for Japan? Japan embarked on a program of industrialization helped by American restoration money. With low internal wages, almost feudal-style industrialism, an extremely agressive export program and (at first) free access to the world's largest markets, they manufactured first the cheapest, and later the highest quality goods in several industries. It was by making the most competitive goods in the *world* market that Japan attained success. The assured access to US markets provided by post WWII treaty agreements also played a vital part. What does this suggest about the value of free access to the US market? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (10/27/87)
In article <2886@hcr.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >[...] was tried before (by Trudeau, no less) with no success. Why Jim! Sounds to me like a statement of a great admirer. May I commend you on your sound judgement of political character! --- Marc Majka
dave@lsuc.UUCP (10/27/87)
In article <C-news-IDs-are-too-long> taras@gpu.utcs.UUCP (T. Pryjma) writes: > >I just wish people would stop attributing too much significance to what >the stock market is doing on any given day. > >It is interesting as a study of herd instinct, but that is about it. I must disagree on this. When the crash wiped out people's profits, it took a lot of purchasing power with it. We're not going to buy that second car now, or as quickly make other major purchases which we'd been contemplating. The overall effect on the economy may be serious. Furthermore, new issues have suddenly gone dead. That has serious implications for companies planning expansion. If you can't raise the equity because no-one is buying, you don't expand. And that sure affects the economy. David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please...
dave@lsuc.UUCP (10/27/87)
In article <912@sask.UUCP> tubman@sask.UUCP (Jim Tubman) writes: >All the stock markets in the world (except, apparently, Egypt's) took a >beating. Apparently South Africa's market wasn't affected (not surprising). David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please...
abrossard@watcgl.UUCP (10/27/87)
> >Japan embarked on a program of industrialization helped by American >restoration money. With low internal wages, almost feudal-style industrialism, >an extremely agressive export program and (at first) free access to the >world's largest markets, they manufactured first the cheapest, and later the >highest quality goods in several industries. > >It was by making the most competitive goods in the *world* market that >Japan attained success. The assured access to US markets provided by >post WWII treaty agreements also played a vital part. > >What does this suggest about the value of free access to the US market? > >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Brad, You don't seem to realize that while Japan is exporting to everybody, it is one of the most restrictive country when it comes to imports. I just saw a program on it resently and the prices of items in Japan is unbelievably high because of trade barriers. A melon cost between $30 and $46, an apple $6. This should give you an idea of what kind of duties they extract on imports! Another interesting point is that electronic product like Sony, Toshiba, etc. cost more in Japan than they do in the US. Why? Because they aim at underselling the competition (quite close to a definition of dumping) and because the Japanese customers don't complain and except whatever prices they are offered. Before jumping to the conclusion that free trade is the major factor in Japan sucess, you have to look at all aspects of the question. Alain Brossard
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/27/87)
> What *would* be courageous would be to... > make Canadians so good at what they do that people > come to us *asking* for our goods and services... This would require making investments whose payoffs would be well beyond the next election. Don't expect it to happen, at least not much. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
mason@tmsoft.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <1078@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >It was by making the most competitive goods in the *world* market that >Japan attained success. The assured access to US markets provided by >post WWII treaty agreements also played a vital part. > >What does this suggest about the value of free access to the US market? > It suggests that at the end of WWII, more or less open access to the US market (I'm taking your word for it, that's not quite the way I heard it) helped Japan immensely. At the time, the US market was the largest, richest & fastest growing market in the world. Today, it's not clear that it is any of those 3 things. Canada stands a significant chance of losing substantial political and economic autonomy with the negotiated `free trade' agreement. Canada's best interests are served by MULTIlateral agreements to reduce tarifs around the world (i.e. GATT), and capitalizing on our significant good will in Britain, Europe, China, and the developing world. This may create some dislocation in the next 10 years, but seems like a MUCH better long term strategy than tying ourselves more closely to an ailing elephant and hoping that it gets better & will toss a few tidbits our way. ../Dave
tubman@sask.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <193@tmsoft.UUCP> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: ... >Canada's best interests are served by MULTIlateral agreements to >reduce tarifs around the world (i.e. GATT), and capitalizing on our >significant good will in Britain, Europe, China, and the developing >world. This may create some dislocation in the next 10 years, but >seems like a MUCH better long term strategy than tying ourselves more >closely to an ailing elephant and hoping that it gets better & will >toss a few tidbits our way. > > ../Dave The GATT organization and the countries that are party to it are examining the Canada-US agreement fairly closely, since it deals with many issues (services, investment, the so-called "invisibles") that will be coming up in the next round of GATT talks. The problems encountered in reaching the Canada-US deal be considered when the GATT nations begin the much more difficult task of hammering out a multilateral agreement. While on the subject of the GATT, it may be helpful to this discussion to recall that under present GATT rules, a bilateral trade agreement must be either free trade or nothing. In particular, sectoral agreements are not allowed. Bob White's statements that he would like more deals like the Auto Pact are misleading; if the Auto Pact did not exist, we could not negotiate it today without breaking the GATT treaty. (It is also worth remembering that either party to the Auto Pact can terminate the deal with six months notice, and the US was starting to get unhappy with the deal, as Canadian auto production was significantly above the safeguard levels and Canada was running a surplus in vehicle trade. In their current protectionist tantrum, the good reasons for the existence of that surplus are brushed aside. But I digress...) But getting back to what Dave said, yes, expanding multilateral arrangements will, over the long term (> 25 years), be the way to go with trade. But even an ailing elephant will still buy the great majority of Canadian exports for at least the short and medium term. We cannot get around that fact no matter what our opinion of the US is.
smithsco@utflis.UUCP (10/29/87)
>I just wish people would stop attributing too much significance to what >the stock market is doing on any given day. > >It is interesting as a study of herd instinct, but that is about it. What >is more interesting are the statistics released by the US Department of >Commerce and Statistics Canada. > >What is more important is the value of the Canadian dollar. We must remember that in the twentieth century, the New York Stock Exchange has accurately predicted eight of the last three depressions/recessions. Seriously though, the stock markets are often accurate predictors of our economic future especially since the market value of a corporation's stocks is its capital at any given time and therefore affects corporations ability to engage in new ventures or in some cases even continue business. Also, it is estimated that the $500,000,000,000 paper loss on the NYSE on Black Monday will result in a sixty to eighty billion falling off in consumer expenditure in the the U.S. I do not know what the current multiplier effect is in the US, but I am no doubt safe in saying that once this tapering off of consumption is mulitplied through the economy, its effects could be quite serious. It is for this reason that the central banks of the OECD nations have been acting in concert to maintain liquidity in the money markets (this is also to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy of the tight money policies of the 1930s). In fact, the Bank of Canada doubled the money supply to the chartered banks from $100,000,000 per day to $200,000,000 per day the week of Black Monday. As far as how one should consider the Free Trade Agreement in light of recent events on the world's stock markets, let's not forget that it was extreme protectionism during the Great Depression that greatly exacerbated the effects of the depression. Also, whether we like it or not, given the nature of Canada's economy as a branch-plant economy, high tariff barriers would have little effect on the Americanization of our economy anyway. If one goes back to the National Policy of the 19th century one discovers that it was the implementation of high tariff walls that brought American plants to Canada in the first place. If they couldn't export their goods to Canada, the Americans figured they would just set up plants here and sell the stuff from inside. Thus, was Canada's branch-plant economy born. So, given the interdependence of the world's national economies and the ability of financial capital to move freely across borders, and the nature of the transnational or multinational corporation, shutting down Canada's borders to the rest of the world certainly won't help our stock exchanges nor will it help Canada's economy. Funny thing is that while I understand the need for freer trade from a cold, hard, economic perspective, from a political and humanistic perspective I have a great deal of difficulty supporting it. Scott Smith, University of Toronto. -- UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,mnetor}!gpu.utcs.toronto.edu!utcsri!lsuc!utflis!smithsco OR: smithsco@flis.toronto.edu.UUCP BITNET: smithsco@utflis.utoronto BELL-TALK: (416)791-4929
daveb@geac.UUCP (10/29/87)
In article <2107@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >I must disagree on this. When the crash wiped out people's >profits, it took a lot of purchasing power with it. We're >not going to buy that second car now, or as quickly make other >major purchases which we'd been contemplating. I hope you mean that as a fairly restrictive "we", dave. People with their reserves in non-stock commodities are laughing. Specifically, Joyce and I went out and bought a new filing cabinet (retail!) the day the market dove. --dave (swiss francs, actually) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
jmsellens@watdragon.UUCP (10/29/87)
In article <2107@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >I must disagree on this. When the crash wiped out people's >profits, it took a lot of purchasing power with it. We're >not going to buy that second car now, or as quickly make other >major purchases which we'd been contemplating. The overall effect >on the economy may be serious. While many people lost a lot of money due to the "crash", some people actually made money. A friend of mine in Chicago who trades options had his best week ever, and he was on holiday for most of it. He may buy a new car. Stock markets are weird - they strike me as being full of superstition and weird ideas about reality. Oh well, they sort of work, except for last week, and I guess the months leading up to it. Maybe there's some way to slow the market down and avoid the panicy follow the leader activity.
rbutterworth@orchid.UUCP (10/29/87)
For every share that was dumped to avoid a loss, there was another share bought in the expectation of gain. Does anyone know how many shares actually changed hands as a fraction of the total number of shares in existence? I'm sure it must be a very small fraction. Even more important, how many of those shares that were traded were "real" shares? There were a lot of people out there selling shares that they didn't own in the morning and then buying them back in the afternoon at a large profit. Most share holders owned .000001% of some company before the "crash" and they still owned .000001% of that company after. The real value of that company, and hence those shares, hasn't changed in the least. Unfortunately, most normal people see the inflated prices that speculators have produced and think their stock is actually worth that much. Then, when these artificial prices fall, they think they have lost a lot of money. The only real change in value was for those people that speculate and buy and sell quite frequently. They are the only ones that should have been affected by this. The whole thing should be considered a joke. Unfortunately, no one is laughing (except the commission collectors who's self-appointed function is to encourage such speculation).
daford@watdragon.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <11436@orchid.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: > >Most share holders owned .000001% of some company before the "crash" >and they still owned .000001% of that company after. >The real value of that company, and hence those shares, >hasn't changed in the least. What is the "real" value of anything? It just what someone else will give you for it (e.g. three pigs for a cow). The number of things called "dollars" that people would give for the shares most certainly did change. The "real" value of the shares dropped. > >that much. Then, when these artificial prices fall, they think >they have lost a lot of money. > Just try to cash your buggy whip shares and pay your grocery bill with the proceeds. People don't just think that they lost a lot of money, they DID lose a lot of money. >The whole thing should be considered a joke. >Unfortunately, no one is laughing (except the commission collectors >who's self-appointed function is to encourage such speculation). The stock market isn't quite that simple. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel A. Ford daford@watdragon.uucp CS Department daford%watdragon@waterloo.csnet U. of Waterloo daford%watdragon%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
John_M@spectrix.UUCP (10/30/87)
In article <2107@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <C-news-IDs-are-too-long> taras@gpu.utcs.UUCP (T. Pryjma) writes: >> >>I just wish people would stop attributing too much significance to what >>the stock market is doing on any given day. >> > >I must disagree on this. ... >... The overall effect on the economy may be serious. > >Furthermore, new issues have suddenly gone dead. That has >serious implications for companies planning expansion. If >you can't raise the equity because no-one is buying, you >don't expand. And that sure affects the economy. As an example of a result of this - my mother-in-law just got "requested" to take immediate not-early-but-not-yet-intended retirement. (She didn't have to, but that would have meant they would have laid off a youger person supporting a family...) She was a proof-reader for a printing company that mostly deals in printing stock options, merger proposals, and similar legal instruments. The work available for their company has just about disappeared since the tumble. She had been planning on working for another year or so - this could significantly affect the quality of her lifestyle for the rest of her life. > >David Sherman >The Law Society of Upper Canada >-- >{ uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave >Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please... (I am sure that prounciation sounds preferable to you, but I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle.) -- --------- .signature eater food --------- John Macdonald UUCP: {mnetor,utzoo} !spectrix!jmm internet:Sorry. We're in range, but we're in no domain. Disc-claimer: (noun) any hack's source directory
tech@auvax.UUCP (10/30/87)
I find my biggest concern out of the last week is that a bunch of sheep like
speculators are running the world's economy. First they all get excited and
knock down the stock market and then they run around trading their money for
(what?) gold (?) and weaken a lot of currencies.
Isn't there a better mechanism for economic regulation? (Yes, yes, yes,
to all you free marketeers out there ... I know that government control
doesn't work any better [or worse :-)].)
********* 73
********** Richard Loken VE6BSV
. ****
.. **** Athabasca University
.... **** Athabasca, Alberta Canada
..........**** ihnp4!alberta!auvaxdave@lsuc.UUCP (11/03/87)
In article <1732@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: >In article <2107@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >>I must disagree on this. When the crash wiped out people's >>profits, it took a lot of purchasing power with it. We're >>not going to buy that second car now, or as quickly make other >>major purchases which we'd been contemplating. > > I hope you mean that as a fairly restrictive "we", dave. People Of course -- lsuc!simone and I. >with their reserves in non-stock commodities are laughing. Well, your commodities haven't gone up, they just haven't gone down. And our losses have almost wiped out our gains over the past year, but that's all. (This wasn't just "paper profits -- we'd cashed out most of our winnings, but had reinvested in a number of stocks that we thought would survive the impending downturn. We didn't expect a crash that would run across the board.) > Specifically, Joyce and I went out and bought a new filing cabinet >(retail!) the day the market dove. And we bought some new furniture, including a filing cabinet, 6 days later (at one of the few places we can buy anything on a Sunday, but that's a whole separate *.politics discussion). It's the big-ticket items that will get hit most, I suspect. Large gains & losses affect your decision to blow $25,000 on a car, not $200 on a filing cabinet... David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please...
dave@lsuc.UUCP (11/03/87)
rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >Even more important, how many of those shares that were traded >were "real" shares? There were a lot of people out there selling >shares that they didn't own in the morning and then buying them >back in the afternoon at a large profit. I doubt it. First of all, selling short is done on a different account and under different circumstances. You have to have 150% margin to cover the short, and 100% of that goes into a short account that pays you no interest. As well, under TSE rules you can only short on an uptick, and October 19 didn't have a whole lot of upticks. (That rule exists to prevent exactly what you describe.) >Most share holders owned .000001% of some company before the "crash" >and they still owned .000001% of that company after. >The real value of that company, and hence those shares, >hasn't changed in the least. The value of the company is, by definition, what the market sets. >Unfortunately, most normal people see the inflated prices that >speculators have produced and think their stock is actually worth >that much. Then, when these artificial prices fall, they think >they have lost a lot of money. Since before the crash they could (and we did) sell their shares for profits, their stock WAS worth that much. That's what "market" means. >The only real change in value was for those people that speculate >and buy and sell quite frequently. They are the only ones that >should have been affected by this. Fair enough. If you bought 500 Royal Bank 5 years ago and you don't plan on selling it for another 5 years, the market price today is irrelevant. >The whole thing should be considered a joke. Well, it's fun, I'll grant you that much... >Unfortunately, no one is laughing (except the commission collectors >who's self-appointed function is to encourage such speculation). They aren't laughing either. Commissions on trades at half the price produce about half the commission. And in a bear market, no-one buys, and the brokers suffer. I look at our own trading patterns -- from 2-4 trades/week before the crash to very little now. We're waiting for things to recover -- however long that takes -- before we sell our current holdings and start trading on the swings again. "What do you call a Yuppie stockbroker?" "'Hey, waiter!'" David (well, it makes life more exciting) Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please...
smithsco@utflis.UUCP (11/08/87)
>dave@lsuc.UUCP (Dave Sherman) writes: >>rbutterworth@orchid.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >>Most share holders owned .000001% of some company before the "crash" >>and they still owned .000001% of that company after. >>The real value of that company, and hence those shares, >>hasn't changed in the least. >The value of the company is, by definition, what the market sets. I thought that the value of the company - as it appears on its financial statements and therefore to its bankers - was the book value which seldom has any correlation to its market value. Scott Smith -- UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,mnetor}!gpu.utcs.toronto.edu!utcsri!lsuc!utflis!smithsco OR: smithsco@flis.toronto.edu.UUCP BITNET: smithsco@utflis.utoronto BELL-TALK: (416)791-4929
idallen@watcgl.UUCP (11/10/87)
In article <1078@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > [...] > With low internal wages, almost feudal-style industrialism, > an extremely agressive export program and (at first) free access to the > world's largest markets, they manufactured first the cheapest, and later the > highest quality goods in several industries. > [...] > What does this suggest about the value of free access to the US market? It suggests that the best way to compete for the US market is to encourage low wages and an almost feudal-style industrialism? -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo
brad@looking.UUCP (11/10/87)
In article <2291@watcgl.waterloo.edu> idallen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Ian! D. Allen) writes: >In article <1078@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >> [...] >> With low internal wages, almost feudal-style industrialism, >> an extremely agressive export program and (at first) free access to the >> world's largest markets, they manufactured first the cheapest, and later the >> highest quality goods in several industries. >> [...] >> What does this suggest about the value of free access to the US market? > >It suggests that the best way to compete for the US market is to >encourage low wages and an almost feudal-style industrialism? >-- > -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo Yes, if Canadians want to work for $1 per hour in Japanese style companies, then we too can have the export success of Japan. Point is Japan got where it was through the combination of a number of factors, and access to the US market was one of the more important ones. Perhaps all are needed, and we should learn to speak Japanese. I think that the kind of innovation ecouraged by free enterprise is a suitable substitute for cheap labour. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tech@auvax.UUCP (11/12/87)
In article <2291@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, idallen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Ian! D. Allen) writes: > In article <1078@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > [...] > > With low internal wages, almost feudal-style industrialism, > > It suggests that the best way to compete for the US market is to > encourage low wages and an almost feudal-style industrialism? > -- > -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo I have seen suggestions that Japan is already waning as a world force as the standard of living and improved working conditions start to make them less competitive against Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Therefore the above is naturally correct. The best way to compete against the world is to undermine their productivity by raising their quality of life to equal that of ours. That also truly opens the world markets since you now have several billion people with the money and spare time to make purchases above and beyond the subistance level. Got that? Good. ********* 73 ********** Richard Loken VE6BSV . **** .. **** Athabasca University .... **** Athabasca, Alberta Canada ..........**** ihnp4!alberta!auvax
dave@lsuc.UUCP (11/16/87)
smithsco@flis.toronto.edu.UUCP (Scott Alan Smith) writes: > >>dave@lsuc.UUCP (Dave Sherman) writes: >>The value of the company is, by definition, what the market sets. > >I thought that the value of the company - as it appears on its financial >statements and therefore to its bankers - was the book value which seldom >has any correlation to its market value. Book value is often used on financial statements, but it's rarely what the bankers will be interested in. The prospects of a company as a going concern have little relationship to the book value of its assets. The "value" of anything is what it's worth -- what someone is willing to pay for it. The stock market is the ultimate example of setting such a value "in the market". David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave Pronounce it ell-ess-you-see, please...
daveb@geac.UUCP (11/17/87)
>>>dave@lsuc.UUCP (Dave Sherman) writes: >>>The value of the company is, by definition, what the market sets. >... >The "value" of anything is what it's worth -- what someone is >willing to pay for it. The stock market is the ultimate >example of setting such a value "in the market". I'll happily agree with the first two sentences (of a discussion of "book value" versus real value), but I question if the stock market is representative of the marketplace. I suggest that 1) Companies traded on the exchange make up a numerically small part of the economy, but make up a proportionally larger part of same. (Hmmn... a large minority if memory serves... corrections invited). 2) Companies traded are sufficiently large that wholesale purchase or disposal is uncommon (ie, that wholesale purchase or disposal of one is newsworthy). 3) The mechanism of allowing easy trading in small portions of large organizations (without dismembering the organization (:-)) causes behavior patterns in the trading which results in share prices which do not necessarily reflect the worth of the company if it were privately held and sold as a single business unit. It is not apparent to me whether the price of a "small business sold whole" or that of a "large business sold share-by-share" is the proper definition of its real worth. I suspect the former, but I also suspect this may be a religious question. --dave -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
jmsellens@watdragon.UUCP (11/18/87)
In article <2191@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >smithsco@flis.toronto.edu.UUCP (Scott Alan Smith) writes: >>I thought that the value of the company - as it appears on its financial >>statements and therefore to its bankers - was the book value which seldom >>has any correlation to its market value. > >Book value is often used on financial statements, but it's >rarely what the bankers will be interested in. The prospects >of a company as a going concern have little relationship to the >book value of its assets. But still you have people preferring to lease rather than buy, because it "looks better on the financial statements" to those people that don't know what they're looking at. Unfortunately, this group includes lots of bankers, lenders and investors. Too many people believe in the superficial appearances, without looking at the real details. Lease committments, for example, are detailed in the notes to the financial statements, and a prudent investor might lump those in with the liabilities when trying to evaluate a company's debt position. I think that someone (perhaps the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, though I don't recall for sure off the top of my head) puts out a small book/booklet called something like "How to read Financial Statements" that might be of interest to a beginning investor. (I could check the CICA publications list if anyone is interested.) >The "value" of anything is what it's worth -- what someone is >willing to pay for it. The stock market is the ultimate >example of setting such a value "in the market". But of course the stock market price tends to float "around" the *real* value of the company, due to superstition and other weird ideas. (Or so I think :-) ) John Sellens sometime accountant and computer geek (Hi Dave - yeah I'm still here, but I may eventually break down and get a real job some day :-) )