You should have a couple of weeks ago when they dropped to 90. Don't expect IBM stocks to start flying through the roof, though. They're a blue chip for a reason - slow, steady growth. There really isn't a bad time to buy IBM, just times that are better than others.
Sure, this may not last forever, but what does? It will certainly last for the next few years, and that's what matters today. IBM is a long term stock, and should be treated as one.
$7 is a HELL of a lot for a HELL of a lot of people.
You're right, it most certainly is. But, as a friend of mine likes to say, economics is not a zero sum game. The simple fact is we can send people to Mars and feed all the children of the world. As a matter of fact, we could feed the world tomorrow - we burn enough food each year to feed hundreds of thousands, all in the name of economics. The amount of land that lays fallow in the United States and Argentina alone could produce enough food to feed the world. Any and all reasons for starvation are political, not economic.
And what about diseases? Is AIDS research hard hit for funding? Not hardly. What about cancer research, where we've already spent more than a trillion dollars. That money has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?
We could have $20 billion in a heart beat if, for example, we just stopped (or at least curbed) government waste. The State Department has more money than they know what to do with - literally! There are managers struggling to find places to put their cash, because they legally have to spend it. No, there's plenty of money. We just have to want it enough.
Slashdot Mirror
You should have a couple of weeks ago when they dropped to 90. Don't expect IBM stocks to start flying through the roof, though. They're a blue chip for a reason - slow, steady growth. There really isn't a bad time to buy IBM, just times that are better than others.
Sure, this may not last forever, but what does? It will certainly last for the next few years, and that's what matters today. IBM is a long term stock, and should be treated as one.
$7 is a HELL of a lot for a HELL of a lot of people.
You're right, it most certainly is. But, as a friend of mine likes to say, economics is not a zero sum game. The simple fact is we can send people to Mars and feed all the children of the world. As a matter of fact, we could feed the world tomorrow - we burn enough food each year to feed hundreds of thousands, all in the name of economics. The amount of land that lays fallow in the United States and Argentina alone could produce enough food to feed the world. Any and all reasons for starvation are political, not economic.
And what about diseases? Is AIDS research hard hit for funding? Not hardly. What about cancer research, where we've already spent more than a trillion dollars. That money has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?
We could have $20 billion in a heart beat if, for example, we just stopped (or at least curbed) government waste. The State Department has more money than they know what to do with - literally! There are managers struggling to find places to put their cash, because they legally have to spend it. No, there's plenty of money. We just have to want it enough.
If you really want to know why we should go to Mars, read James Cameron's speech to the Mars Society:
http://www.marssociety.org/cameron_one.a sp
It's long, but I don't think it could be stated much better.
-m@