PALO ALTO, Calif. (CNN/Money) -
Markets have been cranky lately, and readers have been even crankier. That's understandable. Hey, it helps to vent. Herewith is some venting.
I just knew when I jokingly referred to folks who think Microsoft's earnings are obscene as "anti-capitalists" that I was in for a byteful. (Read the column about the company's settlement with the SEC.)
"There is a big difference between being anti-capitalist and anti-monopolist. I am a staunch capitalist and believe Microsoft's earnings are a direct result of their monopolistic business practices -- that doesn't make me, or many like me, anti-capitalist," Murray Mintz, the CEO of an outfit called eLayover.com, respectfully wrote.
"Microsoft has been tried and convicted as a monopolist, so that court was 'anti-capitalist?' You can do better than that to describe the context of what has happened -- like simply stating the facts: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Period," attested an unsigned e-mail.
But you know it's serious when academe -- in this case, John Tiemstra, a professor of economics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. -- weighs in with arguments so straightforward even I can understand them.
"You don't have to be 'anti-capitalist' to deplore monopoly and monopoly rent. A market economy has to have competition to function well. When there are monopolies, capitalism doesn't work the way it is supposed to. Profits are supposed to attract entry and investment into an industry. When there is monopoly, that doesn't happen. It doesn't just harm the monopolist's potential competitors, it harms consumers and the general public. Capitalism is like any sport -- the game is only interesting and well-played if everybody abides by the rules. Being opposed to face-masking or clipping doesn't make you 'anti-football.' It just means you want to see the outcome determined by skill and athleticism rather than brutality."
For the record, I was only joking!
A common theme among the angry is that financial writers are just jealous they're not making the big bucks and therefore aren't worth listening to. Take Jamie, a frequent correspondent, who got his or her hackles up over a recent column on Cisco:
"Say what you want about John Chambers, but who is worth millions and who probably doesn't have pot to piss in? I believe Chambers. You are just a loudmouth who writes columns to start something."
I like some of your ideas, Jamie, especially about me being a loudmouth. Trust me, you have no idea. You should know, however, that I have some very nice pots. Of course, there are worse things than being jealous. There are always a few who suspect far darker intentions, like Michael Patterson, who fumes,
"Quit writing such bearish, pessimistic columns on techs. It's morons like you that keep investors so jittery. I'd bet anything that you're short on the market and are doing this for your own gain. Your pessimism gets old after about the first 10 articles...."
| |
RECENTLY BY ADAM LASHINSKY
| |
| | |
| | |
|
You'd lose that bet Mike. I invest mostly in diversified mutual funds, which are long on the stock market. I also think you've got the chicken-egg thing totally confused here. You think it's morons like me keep investors jittery? Or perhaps is it the string of stock-market disasters, corrupt CEOs, missed quarters and the like that are making them jittery? You're blaming the messenger even though the message has been right: Stocks have stunk for months and months. But that's okay. As journalists, we're used to it.
Some readers have more than gripes. They have suggestions. Like Tom Haley:
"It would be interesting to get some info on innovative technologies that businesses might make investments in during the recovery (assuming we're in one) or more properly as a result of the recovery. Some people focus on the last bull market in technology but I don't care about that and perhaps others don't either. Perhaps there is ALMOST NO technological innovation on the horizon that will foster investment by companies in new technology."
My take is that there is precious little in terms of genuine innovation that will be meaningful in the short term, at least for public investors. A venture capitalist told me recently that the only technologies corporations will buy are products like software that will save them money quickly. New paradigms are out, for the time being.
But the weekend's not out. It's in! Have a good one.
Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. Send e-mail to Adam at adam_lashinsky@timeinc.com.
Sign up to receive The Bottom Line by e-mail.
|
