|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Maybe so!
Right column is ratio of price currently divided by price in '84.
After all the BS I've heard about GE, it is a wonder that it
is not at the top of the list.
Clyde
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
SYTECH Corporation email:clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Office: (713) 783-9540
Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
Details at: www.theswingmachine.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Simms" <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: [RT] GE and Welch
> the economy was on "auto pilot" during the 1990s......
> gorillas could have run the company.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BobsKC [mailto:bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:19 PM
> > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [RT] GE and Welch
> >
> >
> > At 09:32 AM 9/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >Frankly, with a 2800% increase in share value it would
> > >seem to me he earned a very "perky" retirement.
> > >
> > >Clyde
> >
> > I agree completely. Whatever that package was costing GE, it was the
> > tiniest token of what he did for the company. Getting shareholder
> > approval for a perk package isn't a reasonable solution either
> > ... no more
> > so that expecting government to come to the voters to decide
> > where to place
> > a stop sign.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > >Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
> > >SYTECH Corporation email:clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Office: (713) 783-9540
> > >Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
> > >Details at: www.theswingmachine.com
> > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Daniel Goncharoff" <thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:26 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [RT] GE and Welch
> > >
> > >
> > > > I call a contract that means my assets are used to pay someone
> > > > indefinitely for not providing any work on my behalf abridging my
> > > > property rights.
> > > >
> > > > You may also want to consider that just because there is a signed
> > > > contract, it doesn't make a transaction legal.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > DanG
> > > >
> > > > Jim Johnson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Daniel,
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you shouldn't own shares in a company whose
> > bylaws/policies don't
> > > > > stipulate that all executive comp plans be put to a
> > shareholder vote.
> > > > > That is rare to nonexistent. You need to understand how the
process
> > > > > works. You elected the board and gave them the latitude to
> > make these
> > > > > decisions for you. If you don't like that arrangement you can:
sell
> > > > > your shares, use options, start your own conglomerate, agitate for
> > > > > board/comp policy reform etc. But the inference I make is that
you
> > > > > would prefer to abridge rights of property ownership.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sunday, September 22, 2002, 7:21:37 AM, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > DG> As a shareholder of GE, I don't remember agreeing to
> > this package of
> > > > > DG> retirement perks. In fact, I only found out about it
> > because of his
> > > > > DG> divorce case. I certainly would have voted against it,
> > as I don't
> > > > > DG> believe in post-retirement benefits of this kind
> > (apartments, jets,
> > > > > DG> etc.) There should be a bonus at departure, partly cash,
partly
> > >stock
> > > > > DG> with a long-term vesting period, fully disclosed to the
> > >shareholders.
> > > > > DG> Then we would have the ability to make a free choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > DG> Regards
> > > > > DG> DanG
> > > > >
> > > > > DG> Jim Johnson wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hello BobsKC,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> you can't hold teachers accountable--they're unionized
> > AND they have
> > > > > >> tenure. what's that all about?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> about money--PAC money mainly. the largest contributors
> > to Democrats
> > > > > >> are unions, teachers associations and trial lawyers.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> the liberal philosophy continues to eat away at our way of
life.
> > >even
> > > > > >> last night on the WSJ editorial board roundtable--when
> > asked about
> > > > > >> Welsh's retirements perks, not one of those presumably
> > free market
> > > > > >> conservative writers observed that what he got was given to him
> > > > > >> freely. Even they seemed to be tacitly buying into the
> > implication
> > > > > >> that somebody (government I assume) should get involved
> > in this. the
> > > > > >> title of van Hayek's book is chilling--The Road to Serfdom.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > >> Jim Johnson
mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Saturday, September 21, 2002, 10:29:59 PM, you wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> Unions. I watched the UAW refuse to give back a dime
> > to Cat when
> > >things
> > > > > >> B> got tough in the early 80's even in the face of warnings
they
> > >would move
> > > > > >> B> their Iowa plants. Well, they moved them. To
> > France! My company
> > >provided
> > > > > >> B> two way radio and closed circuit tv services to those
> > plants and
> > >it was a
> > > > > >> B> tough loss for us.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> There was a time for labor unions. That time was 80
> > years ago.
> > >Most of
> > > > > >> B> the money they pull in goes to organized crime and they have
> > >caused
> > > > > >> B> manufacturing to depart wholesale. Besides, I am
> > suspicious of
> > >anyone who
> > > > > >> B> wants to work at a job where they tell you how much
> > you can make.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> So, greed has driven out the manufacturing jobs. Our
> > education
> > >system has
> > > > > >> B> lowered the bar for the few until the majority are getting a
> > >second rate
> > > > > >> B> education and can not compete in the world market place.
> > >Education is not
> > > > > >> B> the same as corporate earnings. You can't just lower the
> > >estimates. I
> > > > > >> B> worry a lot about our youth .. kids coming out of high
school
> > >today are
> > > > > >> B> less informed that kids coming out of 8th grade 30 years
ago.
> > >The damn
> > > > > >> B> bar better get put back up where it belongs and teachers
held
> > >accountable
> > > > > >> B> and tested.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> Bob
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> At 05:57 PM 9/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > > >> >>Did the US have a choice in its conversion? It was
> > convert or die.
> > >The
> > > > > >> >>manufacturing went elsewhere because they could do it
> > just as good
> > >and a lot
> > > > > >> >>cheaper. The only other alternative we had was to become
> > >isolationists again
> > > > > >> >>and ban imports. Our agriculture is going the same
> > way right now.
> > >Garlic
> > > > > >> >>is coming in from China at 1/2 the price it can be
> > produced for in
> > >the US.
> > > > > >> >>The same with oranges, grapefruit and other citrus
> > from Australia
> > >and South
> > > > > >> >>America. Are the grain markets in the same shape? Brazil,
> > >Australia, and
> > > > > >> >>other countries are producing product for less. How long can
a
> > >subsidy
> > > > > >> >>last? Where is our vaunted fishing fleet. Are there
> > any American
> > >flag
> > > > > >> >>vessels left afloat, outside of the Navy and coast
> > guard. Do we
> > >produce
> > > > > >> >>shoes or clothing any more? We still have a thriving wine
> > >industry.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>I have a question. Who does the service industry
> > service? We have
> > >banks
> > > > > >> >>that lend money to foreign countries that don't repay
> > the loans.
> > >We have
> > > > > >> >>computer companies that import all of the parts they
> > assemble here.
> > >So we
> > > > > >> >>did save those high paying assembly line jobs. The fast food
> > >restaurants
> > > > > >> >>are expanding overseas instead of in the US so those
> > high paying
> > >service
> > > > > >> >>jobs at Wendy's and McD aren't going to shrink the
unemployment
> > >rolls. The
> > > > > >> >>banks can now lose money in insurance, brokerage and other
non
> > >banking
> > > > > >> >>endeavors. Even the federal government is sending our
> > armaments
> > >for
> > > > > >> >>production overseas.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Were is the talent coming from to operate the high
> > tech companies?
> > >That
> > > > > >> >>talent is coming from oversees. We can't even produce an
> > >intelligent work
> > > > > >> >>force. There is one ever expanding area of the
> > economy. Tattoo
> > >parlors and
> > > > > >> >>body piercing salons are popping up all over. Now
> > there is a real
> > >future
> > > > > >> >>for your kids. Am I missing something here? Ira
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> >>From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> >>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> >>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:54 PM
> > > > > >> >>Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Gary, do you have a URL for that article, sure would like
to
> > >read the
> > > > > >> >>whole
> > > > > >> >> > thing?
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > I have long believed that true economic strength is
> > built upon a
> > >strong
> > > > > >> >>and
> > > > > >> >> > resilient manufacturing base. I have also been
> > saying for many
> > >years that
> > > > > >> >> > the US would suffer deeply in the next
> > recession/depression for
> > >having
> > > > > >> >> > converted to a service based economy.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Earl
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> >> > From: "Gary Funck" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> >> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> >> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:23 PM
> > > > > >> >> > Subject: RE: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> >> > > > From: Daniel Goncharoff [mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > >> >> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:37 AM
> > > > > >> >> > > > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> >> > > > Subject: Re: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > I think there are two sides to this point. Isn't a
> > >service-based
> > > > > >> >>economy
> > > > > >> >> > > > more flexible than one based on large
> > factories? It may mean
> > >that
> > > > > >> >> > > > changes come more easily, and that new industries can
> > >develop using
> > > > > >> >>the
> > > > > >> >> > > > excess information-based labor from weaker sectors.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > In this respect, telecoms will be a good
> > real-life example.
> > >It will be
> > > > > >> >> > > > interesting to see what happens to all the
> > people getting
> > >laid off by
> > > > > >> >> > > > the telecoms firms that won't be growing for
> > several years.
> > >If they
> > > > > >> >>end
> > > > > >> >> > > > up having no place to go, that would indicate
> > your believe
> > >is
> > > > > >> >>validated.
> > > > > >> >> > > > If they find new jobs in a similar field, I think the
> > >economic hit
> > > > > >> >>will
> > > > > >> >> > > > not be very big at all.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > In this week's Business Week, there's a rather
disturbing
> > >article that
> > > > > >> >> > refutes
> > > > > >> >> > > the theory that a service based economy should be more
> > >resilient.
> > > > > >> >>Excerpts
> > > > > >> >> > > below:
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > The Educated Unemployed
> > > > > >> >> > > The jobless rate for managers and professionals
> > is likely to
> > >rise
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > [...]
> > > > > >> >> > > Here's why joblessness is likely to rise: Across
> > the board,
> > >companies
> > > > > >> >>are
> > > > > >> >> > > facing an unholy trio of low profits, weak
> > demand, and falling
> > > > > >> >> > prices--with no
> > > > > >> >> > > relief in sight. Revenues for the companies in
> > the Standard &
> > >Poor's
> > > > > >> >> > 500-stock
> > > > > >> >> > > index are down 2% over the past year, adding to
> > the pressure
> > >on
> > > > > >> >>businesses
> > > > > >> >> > to
> > > > > >> >> > > cut costs by cutting workforces. At the same time,
> > >productivity is
> > > > > >> >>soaring
> > > > > >> >> > at a
> > > > > >> >> > > rapid clip--a 6% gain over last year at nonfinancial
> > >corporations.
> > > > > >> >>That's
> > > > > >> >> > > allowing businesses to meet flat demand with
> > fewer workers.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Even more distressing, some of the sectors where the job
> > >market has
> > > > > >> >>stayed
> > > > > >> >> > > relatively strong--including health, education,
> > finance, and
> > >retailing,
> > > > > >> >> > which
> > > > > >> >> > > together make up about 40% of the total
> > workforce--are showing
> > >signs of
> > > > > >> >> > > cracking. And the already grim labor picture in
> > the airline,
> > >energy,
> > > > > >> >> > > technology, telecom, and media sectors--some 7% of the
> > >workforce--keeps
> > > > > >> >> > > deteriorating.
> > > > > >> >> > > [...]
> > > > > >> >> > > This is the dark side of the productivity boom. During
the
> > >second half
> > > > > >> >>of
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > 1990s, output per worker rose, but soaring demand and
> > >revenues, driven
> > > > > >> >>in
> > > > > >> >> > part
> > > > > >> >> > > by the technology and telecom boom, helped boost
> > hiring and
> > >push down
> > > > > >> >>the
> > > > > >> >> > > unemployment rate below 4%. Wages and bonuses
> > soared, and it
> > >seemed like
> > > > > >> >>a
> > > > > >> >> > > golden age for workers.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > But rising productivity without rising demand is
> > a recipe for
> > > > > >> >>disappearing
> > > > > >> >> > > jobs. If companies can't raise prices, the only
> > way they can
> > >boost
> > > > > >> >>profits
> > > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > >> >> > > to cut workers--and higher productivity makes
> > that possible.
> > > > > >> >> > > [...]
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > >> >> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > >> >>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > >> >> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > >> >>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > >> B> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> B> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > >> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > > DG> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > DG> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DG> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Attachment:
Description: "junk.gif"
|