David Mandl on 5 Dec 2000 18:07:56 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Re: The Seventh Myth of Technology Stocks (fwd) |
>From a discussion on the Tulipomania mailing list. Geert asked me to forward this to Nettime, so here it is. --Dave. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "David Mandl" <dmandl@panix.com> To: <tulip-org@waag.org> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Tulip-org] The Seventh Myth of Technology Stocks > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, geert lovink wrote: > > > [this is a slightly better version of the piece which I posted on > > nettime yesterday, curious about your response./g] > > > > The Seventh Myth of Technology Stocks > > By Geert Lovink > > Hi Geert-- > > This is a subject I'm fascinated by--the way revisionism kicks in at > times like this, and how it works. Some random comments: > > During the New Economy mania, almost NOBODY involved in the biz (money > people, dot-com entrepreneurs, financial journalists) was a nay-sayer. > Virtually ALL of them made fun of stuffy old guys who wore ties to > work and people who owned stocks in old-economy companies. I followed > this closely for years, in the press and on web sites like the > Street.com (one of the worst offenders). There's no doubt in my mind > that when the dust settles, it'll turn out that "no one" was > responsible, no one really believed that Amazon was worth $600 a > share, everyone thought allowing dogs into the office was silly, etc. > Most of all (as you point out), Wall St. will deny that they had > anything to do with it. Dot-com mania "just happened" somehow. > > Another line you hear in situations like this is how crazy "we" all > were. I remember that at the end of "The Eighties" there was a cover > story in Spy magazine entitled "WHAT WERE WE THINKING???" or something > like that. The gist of it was: "Wow, wasn't that crazy? Just look at > all the silly things we all did in The Eighties"--all the horrible > excesses you'd read about in the papers every day. I didn't do those > things (and I actually worked on Wall St.). No one I knew did those > things. This was kind of a cynical ploy to make it look like "we" > were all swept up in the ridiculous things going on, when actually > only a certain group of obnoxious people were. Similarly, the > official story is that everyone in the seventies was wearing a silly > powder-blue leisure suit and mood ring, and listening to horrendous > music. But in fact, there were a lot of great things going on in the > seventies, and a lot of fantastic music. > > So here's another way this may play out: Five years from now there'll > be a mythos of "the nineties" wherein "we" were all day-trading > knuckleheads; we all thought that the internet was the greatest thing > since the invention of paper; we all mortgaged our houses to trade net > stocks; we all started silly businesses where kids sat around and got > massages and free Coke all day; etc. > > One of the things that pissed me off the most about dot-com mania was > the snotty journalists and New Economy "investors" who made fun of > people who were too old, cautious, or square to be among the hipsters. > This was a pretty ugly phenomenon. I remember reading a sneering > article on a financial web site where their goatee-wearing west-coast > correspondent attended a financial seminar for "senior citizens" and > made fun of how feeble and silly they were, and of course the fact > that they all owned utility stocks and the like. I hope this guy lost > millions. (Actually, if he owned stock in his employer's company, he > did.) The same guy also came out in defense of the misleading ad > campaigns of the various online trading firms when those were under > attack. > > I remember that when the Tulipomania conference was being organized I > considered doing a (semi-ironic) talk in praise of old-style > capitalists. (But it would have been much too controversial, and too > many people would have missed the point.) In fact, I've got to say > that I have a lot of respect for people like Warren Buffett, who > withstood the most amazing torrent of abuse, ridicule, and pressure > over the past couple of years and ended up being one of the few > investors in the world who survived. It was an amazing spectacle to > watch. No, I won't attempt to defend the third-richest man in the > world, but I must admit that I have tremendous respect for him just > for his sheer discipline and self-confidence, and his ultra-analog, > old-world, no-bullshit style. What can I say? > > --D. > > -- > Dave Mandl > dmandl@panix.com > davem@wfmu.org > http://www.wfmu.org/~davem # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net