Here we are again. Flirting with the 50 day moving average once again
"threatening braking it to the opside. (last time/first time we where
here (Friday Nov 28 CNTF rose on a ekstreme thin volume - 800 stock 5
min before close.

As you may very well remember the following monday (Dec 1.) Nasdaq
tumbled 9%. Not a good day to make a rally go stedy.

This time we could cross fingers. Volume much more convincing this
time. If it holds or builds on monday CNTF might go for a wild ride to
the upside during christmas. It simply cannot be hold down here
forever.

I believe stock has seen bounce as a result of the launch of TechFaith
Software's website.  TechFaith software is a joint venture between
Techfaith Wireless and Qualcomm.

http://www.techfaithsoftware.com/en/index.asp

I believe Techfaith did mention on a recent conference call that
TechSoft would begin to contribute positive earnings sometime in 2009.

lets' see 2009, that's two weeks away. Gotta love my shares now.

Peace & Prosperity,
Christi

CHA CHING! Android Wins.

"Cha Ching for sure" Long term Hold and Loving it!!

LOL! Yeah some "cha ching" alright!   Look at it drop fast to its
original level, you should have cashed out instead of being too
greedy.  When will foolish investors finally admit that the stock
market is thoroughly a zero-sum ponzi scheme?  In this crooked game,
many people HAVE to lose for SOME people to win, like a poker game,
there's no other way to it for this crooked ponzi scheme

To suggest that stock market is a zero-sum game over the long run is
to suggest that businesses in our societies does not develope. Stock
value in part reflects business value. And Business value reflects
their surroundings, (Costumers, growth, devopment in society, etc.)
You dont have to study movies from your grandfathers time very hard to
determine whether we have developed or not.

Patience. Stock market tends to turn around 6-12 month before economy
turns around. And you vill be sorry you didnt buy/hold in these
levels.

This stock will probably rocket. It is (to my believe) just a matter
of when.

developing businesses have no relation to the ponzi scheme, zero sum
nature of stock markets including in the long run. Developing
businesses grow by bigger profits and better choices, not by how a
stock price is doing, either way even if it did reflect the business
this doesn't eliminate the ponzi scheme nature of the market in which
someone HAS TO LOSE, in order for others to win, there's no other way
around it

stock value does not at all reflect business value, such putrid
hogwash is due to desperation by ignorant investors who wish not to
see the truth of the crooked ponzi scheme,   share prices are very
subjective, and constantly driven by the whims and subjective
interpretations of millions of people, how this could at all be
OBJECTIVE reflection of business value is sheer nonsense.. Besides,
share prices are sometimes wayyy overvalued to the business, but it
remains so anyway, so there's no way to rely on "business value" to
make smart choices..

besides, even if they DID reflect business value, this DOES NOT
eliminate the ponzi scheme nature of the crooked game of stock
trading.. The fact of the matter is that a limited number of liquidity
is available in the entire market, thus if one wants to get MORE money
than THEY PUT IN,  someone else NEEDS TO LOSE MONEY, in order for
someone else to win,  there's no other way around it...

it's nothing but a constant "passing on" of the costs to newer and
newer investors, and those investors have to sell on those shares AT
EVEN HIGHER PRICES to someone else in order to make money,  stocks
don't rise infinitely, they HAVE TO come down eventually, thus when
they do the entire ponzi scheme is exposed and people lose money

this stock may rocket, but consequently it will also drop, there's
always a bust after a boom, and like you said, "it's only a question
of when,"   a.k.a.  "how can I tell when to buy and sell so that I
won't get screwed but the other person will get screwed" a.k.a.  "when
can I bailout of this ponzi scheme before it drops again so that I
pass on the costs to someone else"

the stock market needs constant new investors and new money in order
for the house of cards to be sustained, just like a ponzi scheme,
otherwise it completely collapses.. How does a stock maintain it
price? By new investors constantly pouring in money and buying it and
hoping to sell it at an even higher price, just like a pyramid scheme,
there's no other difference

I certainly agree that there is a lot more to pricing a stock than
pure messureable things. Psycology plays the mayor part at the present
time.

I absolutly will not imply that businesses growth depents how its
stock price is doing. The other way around naturely.

I also agree that some people - in present times most people looses on
stocks. But after rain comes the sun. It has always been so - and it
will be so again.

But I cannot agree this is a zero-sum model. Simply because of the
inherent growth. Our economy gets bigger year for year. We have a much
higher living standard than our patents had in our age - and what
about our grand parents. Business tends to grow proportionally. And in
the longer run stock-price for the companies in this game.

And if business gets bigger each share value gets bigger. Year for
year. People and banks put money in play becauce of that.

Of course if nobody suddently wants to buy - as right now - prices of
stocks goes dramaticly down (But valuations of stocks messured in p/e
ratios goes up in the same temper)

Ask youself why banks want to deposit your money. They want our money
so that THEY can activate them- and ean from them. They put our
savings in business because they have learned that that this pays off.
So dont put your head under your pillow (or money in the bank). Stand
up and take responsibility yourself - but be aware - we may not have
seen the buttom yet.

In CNTF I belive though that we have seen the buttom. Graphicly it
seem like a pretty stong U-shape buttom. Some woluld perhaps argue an
L-shape buttom, but leadership in this company seems (to me) pretty
strong (They fired 600 people even though they didnt have negative
numbers. Just to keep focus, and because they saw potential
contracting coming - sooner than many other businesses). And the list
of positive stories is growing longer month for month.

My reliance of this company is strong. Numbers in the balance sheet
and "googling" around this company convincing me that this is an
ecellent buy in a 12-24 month perspective. But of course I look
forward to year-result and companys evaluation of business and own
performance.

even the other way around it's not that common, just look at all the
phony booms we've had including this one, which the stock market
requires to make quick bucks which others then lose lots

this one's a real hoot...notice the nonsensical terms, "inherent
growth," instead of looking at how the stocks REALLY work, which I
already said in my previous post:

it's nothing but a constant "passing on" of the costs to newer and
newer investors, and those investors have to sell on those shares AT
EVEN HIGHER PRICES to someone else in order to make money,  stocks
don't rise infinitely, they HAVE TO come down eventually, thus when
they do the entire ponzi scheme is exposed and people lose money

the only reason stocks would keep going up is newer and newer
investors thinking that they can sell for a higher price so they buy
it, this of course is ludicrous because stocks cannot go up infinitely
in price, thus eventually there won't be any investors that will pay
$900 for Google and therefore it will crash and people WILL Lose money
which is necessary for the others to win

this applies to why there's any increases to the price, be it 20% or
100%, all the buyers want the share price to go up , including the one
who bought Google at 800$, but it's impossible for it to infinitely go
up, hence when it doesn't, it will eventually come down due to lack of
new investor money and thus people will have to lose while others gain

this is exactly how Ponzi's scheme worked, where older investors
required to constantly pass on the costs to the new investors until no
one accepts and it collapses

nonsense, economies contract all the time

now this is a real Sloppy Joe of a rationalization, the ponzi scheme
nature of the stock market and its zero-sum, loss requiring essence is
purely about mathematics and psychology, living standards and
businesses growing are totally irrelevant as to the necessity of there
being losers in the stocks for there to be winners... AND, businesses
don't continuously grow either, profits go up and down and many go
bankrupt, share price also cannot rise infinitely, that would require
infinitely increasing profits, over valuation occurs eventually for
all companies, that's when the boom busts, and that's when all the
costs that were passed on to more willing investors buying for more
got screwed

just look at the Indexes, nothing but rises and a huge drop to
original levels before the boom, the 06-08 bust in the Indexes is down
to low levels in the 2k bust, this signals that the ponzi scheme is
done because there's no more sucker investors willing to buy for
higher and higher prices since that's not limitless,  eventually the
indexes will collapse to near the levels of when they started, as more
and more of the ponzi scheme is exposed

but THIS IS THE DELUSION, the psychotic arrogance that it's possible
for a business to be continuously growing with higher profits into
infinity, because that's what DRIVES the rise in stock prices
themselves. 98% of the prices are speculation, just emotional charges
of IPOs based on hype and subjective "worth", and then the boom is
over and the necessary bust EVENTUALLY occurs, be it 3 or 30 years
from the IPO

people and banks put money in play because they think they can sucker
another investor into buying the shares for even higher prices, and
that's THE reason why stock prices begin to rise and continue rising,
until no more buyers are willing to pay such high prices, then the
pyramid collapses

WHAT??? There will always be eventually when nobody suddenly "wants to
buy" because share prices and business profits cannot linearly rise
infinitely

hence valuations of "stocks measuring in p/e ratios" DOESN'T GO UP
infinitely and hence it will bust, even if the stock price just went
from 0 to 10% then collapsed, those who bought at the higher prices
LOST money and those at the lower GAINED by selling it for higher
prices, just like in every percentage of share price increases there
HAS to be a loser in order to be a gainer

umm, this isn't a ponzi scheme though. Profits on loans are made by
charging interest on the use of their money, this is legitimate and
productive for BOTH partners in the transaction,  ponzi schemes are
based on theft and fraud where losers are NECESSARY for their to be
winners

'the bottom' is meaningless, the stock market is inherently fraudulent
because it's a ponzi scheme that requires losers for their to be
winners

all of this requires that more and more willing investors will have to
buy for higher prices and sell them at higher prices, and so on and so
on into ad absurdem, so that you would be satisfied with a 50%
increase or whatever, at which point some other sucker will think it
WILL STILL go up, which is ludicrous because IT has to stop
eventually, and even if it stopped at a "legitimate" price reflected
in the ratios, it HAS TO GO DOWN if people want to CASH OUT and take
their profits

Cooool. I like you.

I strongly believe you are wrong. But with style.

In 1931 the Dow Jones fell from 170 to 110. Now it is back at 8500.
Pretty big gain after all. Reflecting the underlying values in the
companies included. I know that there is inflation an most of the
companies from that time dont exist anymore (And stockholders if not
switching to other companies lost all their money)

CNTF so far have shown significant growth. 3 quarter result strongly
influences by extraordinary cost related to the restructuring -
threrfore difficult to say anything meaningfull about p/e right now.
My sence is that current price is reflecting that uncertainty. But
comparing results from the last 3 years this company looks strong.
Among Leadership is some of the guys who started the company. They
seem to know what they want, and are willing to take dramatic messures
to achive the goals they have set up.

If we set this stock to a dollar today, I belive you can have times 3
to 5 before year 2009 end if generel market sentiments turns around.
Remember this have been a 20$ stock.

I cannot help remembering Carl Marx criticising capitalism. In his
definition of capitalism (Capitalisme = 1/few holders of the capital
(Labor, material, buildings, money) he forgot that in his own utopia
there was only one owner/administrator of the capital - the party. In
our socalled (But with marx´s definition in mind incorrectly labbeled)
capitalistic societies we practicly all are holders of capital in
sence of stocks directly owned or in pension fonds. Many owns the
houses they live in (or the bank does). Generel shareownership is good
in sence of having welth widely distributed.

You can buy with good conciusness. An CNTF I believe you can buy with
pretty good margin.

(Forgive me my english. I am Dane and cannot find my dictionary)

If communism worked without a police state, Marx would have been
right. However, Ron Reagan and his advisors actually took the 1 and
changed it to 7/more holders.

It is all in the definition of who holds what resources. Now thx to
Bush et all, the Americans no longer hold any assets, only liabilities
unless they can scramble for the crusts left behind by corporations
owned by international interests.

Since the banks own your house... they own that too. All they have to
do is redefine the rules, the taxes etc.. and take it from you..

Let's would that happen?  Oh wait, it is already happening.

When we are all done scratching for the crusts left over, maybe we
will finally wake up and realize, we never had to play their game in
the first place.

Signed Investing pretty well and waiting for the world to wake up.

Christi

believing that I'm wrong is not a proof that I am

but the Dow also dropped to 2003 levels again as the Ponzi scheme
unraveled and the boom busted. Second, the only reason why the Dow is
back up is because millions of people began jumping into the Ponzi
scheme again, thinking that people would be buying for more and more,
which is again ludicrous, the Dow is only where it is now, because
constant new money was flowing in, that's it. If no money flowed in it
would collapse, and the only reason constantly new money keeps flowing
in is because idiots think it will KEEP GOING UP and hence people
could sell it for higher and higher, which is ludicrous, the Dow and
the other Indexes literally ASSUME that they can go up INFINITELY,
either way losers are necessary for there to be winners

you're REALLY missing the point here. The zero-sum nature of the stock
market cannot be refuted, even if CNTF was making billions of dollars,
making money through trading REQUIRES that some lose in order for
others to gain, like a ponzi scheme..Why would a share price keep
going up? Because people think they can sell for HIGHER AND HIGHER
after buying at higher prices, until there's no more buyers, then
COLLAPSE, that's all it's based on

see what I mean? You just keep ignoring the ponzi scheme nature of the
stock market...The ONLY reason why the stock would go up if people
thinking that they could SELL it AT HIGHER AND HIGHER PRICES, so
people are willing to buy it for HIGHER AND HIGHER prices,  until it
collapses, and boom the people who bought at the higher ends lose
while the others gain, that's the only way "profits" are made

it's like a chain reaction of the same irrational thoughts cancelling
themselves out:  "oo it's 50 cents I can sell it for a 1$....oo it's
2$ I can sell it for 4$...ooo it's 10$ I can sell it for 20$  and so
on and so on into ad absurdem until it collapses,  whoever bought at
the higher prices, LOSES and the ones who bought at the lowest GAIN,
there's no WEALTH CREATION, just wealth REDISTRIBUTION from the pool
of money that was invested in the ponzi

hence such thinking is required even for the smallest gains, say a
stock gains 10% from 1$ to 1.10$, what's the reason? The original
buyers thought they could sell it for more than 1$, while the later
buyers thought they could sell it for more than 1.10$, alas there were
no more suckers in the game so it collapsed at 1.10$, what happens?
The lowest buyers STEAL from the higher buyers, and the higher buyers
who bought at 1.10$ LOSE their money,  that's how it works for every
gain in prices, be it 3% or 50% gains, they're all ponzi schemes

this is some real nonsensical verbage...This doesn't refute the fact
that the stock market is a ponzi scheme zero-sum game that REQUIRES
losers for there to be winners

now this is hilarious, you're terribly deluded about the ponzi scheme
nature of the stock market, and here you are telling the world to wake
up?   Look at the stock market, nothing but a ponzi scheme where THERE
REQUIRES to be losers for there to be winners, and everyone is trying
to GET IN ON IT, thinking that THEY WON'T BE THE ONES WHO WILL LOSE,
it will be THE OTHER GUY who will gets passed on the costs, then BAM,
it happens to YOU

Where does dividends come into this Ponzi scheme?

sure, dividends create SOME legitimacy in buying shares, but look at
how INSIGNIFICANT they are compared to the speculation that arises and
the amount of LOSSES one can acquire due to speculation.. Dividends
get you around 5% if they're even good, most dividends are puny as
hell, but the rest is all speculation, look at the gains/losses in
share price ALONE, they determine over 97% of gains/losses.. Most
investors aren't really looking at dividends, they're looking at
whether more and more suckers will buy for higher and higher prices,
which is ludicrous

look at CNTF share price now, it has just surged massively in a short
time, it's impossible for this to keep going up, because there isn't
going to be more and more suckers buying it for higher and higher
prices, eventually the bubble will burst, and the ones who bought in
at the low prices gain, while the others LOSE A LOT, which is REQUIRED
in order to make money, there's no other way around it.. In order to
make money you require suckers that think they can sell it for higher
prices, so they buy it at higher prices, every investor thinks this
down to the last one who bought AT THE HIGHEST PRICE,  but of course
this pyramid is nothing but fraud and theft, so eventually there isn't
any more suckers, and BAM, people gain while others necessarily lose,
everyone thinks they can escape the burst, until THEY are the ones
that end up paying the tab

Happy new year to you guys

In Denmark time has set for 00.45.. and I have certainly had my share
of champagne and wine.

Good performance of CNTF today, but to my firm belive only the beginin

I will wake up tomorrow and take stand to whats quistened.

I remember though that in one certain period of my live I was 100%
convinced that I never turned 27 Years old. Why I picked 27 I dont
have an answer for.

 Today I am 40 an knowing that world hasnt come to an end. So havent
stockmarekts or growth.

I know I have to do better with argument and so I will do tomorrow

Happy new year all of you.

Thomas Prahl, Denmark

OK, I was challenged

If you pmortaz...@gmail.com cannot be convinced about growth in
societies and businesses by looking around you. Then look inside
yourself, and ask yourself: Do YOU develope and learn over time? Are
you more capable of coping with life and workrelated subjects now than
you where 10 years ago?

Of course you are.

Do you pass your knowledge on to yuor friends and kids. Yes you do.
They learn from you, just as you have learned from the relations you
have been engaged in.

My old motherinlaw is living next door on an old farm. In school in
Denmark we have a schoolhollyday in week 42. Now called
autumnvacation. After 2. worldwar it was called potatohollyday. Why?
Because all the scoolchildren were needed in the fields alongside with
all the employees on the farms to harvest potatoes before they got
frost and/ or rotten. She remeber that pretty clear.

Then some smart guy invented a potato-pick-up maschine. I have
resently seen such one in action. It takes one man a couple of hours
to harves the same area that a whole family on its hurting knees prior
would sacrifice a week for.

In 1988 I started my quest to get my Master of Science - in business
administration. Strategy and Management.
Such a quest definately calls for a computer. It costed 2900 USD (in
Danish Kroner - 1½ month full-time wage - after tax -at the time).
This mean maschine was a 40 megabyte monster with a 14 inch black and
white screen. Processor was Intel 80286. When we played computergames
on it it was very primitive ping-pong games or a worm "running around
the screen we should make sure not bunched into the side. It was DOS-
controled, so you should be bit of a nerd to operate it. Now we have
Windows, count in Gigabytes, and before short its terrabytes. And you
soon can buy one for a 100 USD.

I saw the latest developement from CNTF was a cool loking windowbased
mobilephone. 20 years ago a mobile phone was at the size of half an
arm and designed like invented of one of the local blacksmiths boys.

With these tecnological steps of course we are far more productive
than we once were. And with falling prices due to our increased
productivity compared to increasing wages the developement tends to
benefit everybody.

This is just the way economy goes. Up. In the long run at least. We
simply have a curiosity for learning and the lazyness to adapt easyer
ways of doing the things we usually do. Over time we thereby get more
and more productive.

Thats why dealing with stocks over the long run will not be a zero-sum
game. The deal itself perhaps, but both parts have held there stocks a
period up to the trade and, they both will have experiences a
(theoretical) gain reflecting the growt of value in the company due to
learning, improving products and enhanced productivity within the
working force

hanneogtho...@mail.tele.dk skrev:

perhaps you need to work on your English more. I never doubted the
growth of societies and businesses, what I pointed out was that the
STOCK MARKET only, is a ponzi scheme and a zero-sum game, because it
REQUIRES losers for there to be winners

you are mistakenly attributing REAL growth in societies and businesses
to the stock market, 1. real growth in societies and businesses is NOT
a zero-sum game, where a LOSER is REQUIRED for there to be a winner,
the stock market on the other hand REQUIRES losers for there to be
winners, 2. businesses DO NOT INFINITELY grow into time, profits do
not INFINITELY increase! Eventually profits level off, or they drop,
they DON'T CONTINUOUSLY GO UP FOREVER

this DOESN'T AT ALL REFUTE my point that the STOCK MARKET itself, and
the TRADING of stocks and shares, options/whatever, is a zero-sum game
ponzi scheme, where LOSERS are REQUIRED in order to have winners

LOL, you still don't understand... dealing with stocks for any amount
of time is a zero-sum game, because BUYERS, ONLY BUY, in the DESIRE to
SELL AT A HIGHER PRICE,  = implying that the PRICE WILL INFINITELY
INCREASE OVER THE LONG RUN

1. companies don't infinitely grow and profits don't infinitely go up,
that's impossible, there's no such thing as infinite demand, demand
goes down, markets go down, etc...

2. any BUYER, NEEDS to SELL AT A HIGHER PRICE to make money, this
implies that the price WILL INFINITELY GO UP

why would CNTF keep going up? Because MORE and MORE buyers think they
can SELL FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER PRICES, so they keep buying it at
higher prices, which makes it go up,  then it reaches say $50 because
it's irrational, now there's NO MORE SUCKER BUYERS, what happens? The
entire thing COLLAPSES, and those that bought at 40-50$ or whatever,
LOSE money, while those that bought at $1 gained money

but notice that ANY RISE in the price, is DUE TO BUYERS THINKING THEY
CAN SELL FOR HIGHER PRICE, so even an increase from $1 to 2$  REQUIRES
losers, because the person that bought at 2$ ASSUMES he can SELL IT
FOR HIGHER PRICE, but this time there's isn't anyone that's going to
buy, so what happens? He LOSES and the person buying at 1$ wins

so you see, EVERY PERSON that buys at the HIGHER END, LOSES, and this
is REQUIRED For the person who bought at 1$ to make money,  how else
would money be made?

you keep ignoring the REAL MECHANICS of the trading, regardless of
short-term or long-term, it's the same mechanics, you keep ignoring
this and you bring up nonsense about "magical infinite business
growth"

look at CNTF now, the ones who bought at 1.34$ (which made the stock
go higher for people who bought at lower end) the ones who bought at
$1.34 think they can SELL FOR HIGHER PRICES, and so can THOSE BUYERS,
and so on and so on, until BOOM there's no more buyers and the whole
thing collapses

I know I may not be the best student in class in english. To be frank
- I don´t care. And You do understand me after all.

The point is that because of growth there dont HAVE to be a looser to
be a winner. In longer run all stockholders will be winners - If they
spread portfolio.

I know several models for business-cykles. Birth, growth,
consolidation, bla. bla. bla. ending with death. But death does not
nessesarily means bankrupcy with loss of all values. Because of growth
in general societies and business - if Investors have a handfull of
different stocks reflecting the underlying trends in the markets and
switch from time to time - then all investors in the longer run will
be winners.

Why: Because the total value of porfolios have risen equvalent to
growth.

In practice of course lots of investors takes huge gamblings and loose
money, but many of them they havent spread portfolios properly. They
might loose it all and give up.

If You happens to be one of them who has lost a big pile og money,
then find a way to get back on the horse again. My guess is that we
have a historical chance to gain huge at the moment.

I belive though - that there is a potental risk that we just like in
1931 will have a relatively quick gain in january/february (Dow to
11500) followed by a collapse (Dow to 7000 or less) in spring.
If that happens, then put all in at the low levels. After that
stockmarkets won´t look back for the next many years. If this scenario
dosn´t realize, we already have seen the bottom.

So - Chear up and hang in

I couldn´t help giving your argumentation a second shut.

All your arguments rely on one sole premisis: "BUYERS, ONLY BUY, in
the DESIRE to
SELL AT A HIGHER PRICE" -

How do you know that? And are you sure?

Capital inflow and busines creation seems to happen for a vararity of
reasons. Some people likes the idea of creation just for the fun of
it. The bigger they can build a company the more powerfull and
important they feel themself. I have worked for a guy like that. He/
they dont sell. Its the identity of such type of people. Others
create, innovate and develope just for the fun and challenge of it.
They dont sell either. Some investers just wants to be a part of
something because it gives meaning to them. They dont sell.

The idea that the stock market should be a zero-sum ponzi scheme must
then theoreticly rely on 2 basic assumptions:

1) Ratio of capial/companies in the game must be constant
2) Stockprice in each company starts and eventually ends at the same
spot

Both of the assumptions are problematic:

First assumption: If amount of capitalinflow to the markets exeeds
relative growth in number of companies stockprices will go up because
relatively more capital is to divide among existing companies. If
number of new companies exeeds the relative capital inflow. capital
will be drained and divided between more companies and stockprices
will go down. Your model does not at all relate to that issue.

Second assumption: I have already presented an argument for real
growth in societies and businesses. Lets pretend that a business
follows a traditional life cycle model: Birth - growth - consolidation
- xx - xx - Death (There are diferent models - therfore the xx´s).
Stockprices should in a zero-sum game follow the same pattern: In
birth, company is small and shareprice small/zero. Growth - rising
shareprice. Consolidaton - Ditto and death: Stockprice small/zero.
Problem with this argumentation is that it does not at all hold in
reality. Death does not mean stockprice = Zero/low. Many companies
looses lives because they are succesful. (And have a high stockprice).
They simply gets aquired or mergered into bigger companies. These
stockholders does not loose at all. They typically gets stocks in the
new mothercompany for a change. If your theory should have a chance in
this matter the average exit-stockprice scould be the same as the
average entry-stockprice. Your model does not at all relate to that
issue either.

The assumptions for your theory simply doesn't hold. And reality shows
that. Over time stockprices rises. Period. Dow Jones 1931: 110, Today
9000. Tends to grow 6 percent per year (real growth smaller due to
inflation). That is dobbles approx. every 12 Years. 36 Years from now:
Dow: 72000. Benefit from it.

CNTF could be a good place to start. Looks like an U-shape buttom. If
so - GET IN - sooner rather than later.
And China would probably be a better place than US or Europe to put
your money in the next many years.

lol...how hard is it to notice the zero-sum nature of the stock
market?  You keep talking about obscure terms such as "growth" instead
of looking at the MECHANICS of trading...In the longer run all
stockholders will NOT be winners because that implies an INFINITELY
INCREASING STOCK PRICE...

ALL buyers NEED to have the share price to go UP HIGHER in order to
sell at a higher price and make money correct? This implies an
infinitely increasing stock price! What's so hard to get?

you still don't get it, the only reason stock prices go up is that
people are buying them at higher and higher prices, in order to sell
them at higher and higher prices, this is NOT INFINITELY SUSTAINABLE,
the costs keep being PASSED ON to newer investors, until the price
becomes too high or there isn't any new investors and BAM the ponzi
scheme collapses

the market needs a CONSTANT flow of MONEY in order to be kept up, say
there is only 100 people investing in the stock market, what happens?
It collapses because some will make money and some will HAVE to lose
money, that's how the others 'make' money, by taking it from the
others! This is the same if there's 100 people or 1 billion people
investing in the market, the pot of money increases, but IN THE END,
someone walks away LOSING, and the other WINNING

this doesn't make any sense...stocks 'rise' ONLY BECAUSE people are
buying them at HIGHER prices, in order to sell them at HIGHER prices,
this implies an infinitely growing share price!

*drops his jaw*.... IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY BUYERS CAN MAKE MONEY IN
STOCKS OTHER THAN SELLING AT A HIGHER PRICE?

yes well these people are the total idiots who are HELPING others make
money while they lose money themselves... And also, buying stocks
doesn't "create businesses" I don't know what you're talking about
here..after the IPO, trading the stocks doesn't at all "fund" the
company

I don't know what kind of "meaning" it gives investors to just buy and
store shares under their bed for the rest of their lives, seems pretty
insane, either way this only SUPPORTS the ponzi scheme

I don't make any of these assumptions, especially not the 1st one..
Stock prices don't have to eventually end at the same spot, but they
will eventually have to DROP when there's no new investors to PASS ON
THE COSTS to, or when the price gets too high, you will also notice,
that stocks usually go in "cycles" these "cycles" are really MULTIPLE
ponzi schemes, where once people take out their money the scheme
collapses, then new BATCHES of suckers pay into the scheme again to
build it up and then it collapses again

it doesn't matter if more capital inflow goes into the markets, stock
prices go up because people are buying at higher prices to sell at
higher prices, this is NOT INFINITELY SUSTAINABLE since prices and
profits can't increase infinitely, and even if they increase
constantly for a long time, investors NEED to pass on the costs to
NEWER INVESTORS that are willing to pay for higher and higher prices,
it's just passing on higher costs to newer and newer people until it
busts because a) not enough people that will buy that high, or b) not
enough people investing in that stock

usually it does, bankrupt companies such as Circuit City will have
collapsing share prices into the cents range, i.e. Circuit City,
Enron, Lehman Brothers

I don't know what you're saying here. Companies lose lives because
they're successful?

WRONG...when a company goes bankrupt, and if it REFORMS into a new
company, MORE OFTEN, NEW SHARES are issued and the old ones become
worthless!  Besides, this doesn't eliminate the need for buyers to buy/
sell at higher and higher unsustainable prices in order to raise the
stock price

actually, many stocks have "cycles" where once a ponzi scheme
collapses, the price drops significantly, then a new ponzi scheme
begins and goes back up again... Sometimes the price drops to near IPO
levels, as we have seen in this market collapse. My model relates to
this quite well because these "cycles" ARE VERY COMMON, and you are
the one that's denying them

LOL!! They ONLY rise because newer and newer generations of suckers
are willing to buy for higher and higher prices in order to sell for
higher and higher prices, which is insanity and unsustainable,
consequently it drops to original levels like in 1929, 2000, and now
2006-2008

stocks go up, ONLY because they are being BOUGHT FOR HIGHER PRICES,
they don't go up on their own, they go up because people are buying
them for higher prices hoping to sell them at higher and higher prices

an infinitely rising stock/index price requires infinitely increasing
capital inflow, which is ludicrous, and the only reason the indexes
and stocks have risen to ridiculously is because now pensions,
savings, insurance, ma and pa, grandma and grandpa money are all being
thrown in for the mad quest for quick wealth, but once it collapsed a
death spiral ensues...the market needs MORE and MORE capital if it is
to infinitely INCREASE in prices, this is madness

Dow Jones 1931: 110, Today

this is just a giant ponzi scheme that requires MORE and MORE capital
to be sustained! Secondly, it only "looks" like growth because the
money supply keeps increasing, which corresponds to the higher numbers
in the stocks/indexes

now we have put pensions, insurance, savings, houses, into the market
WHICH IS WHAT IS driving it up! More capital is driving it up, not
"growth"! But this is unsustainable because we aren't going to have
newer and newer generations putting in EVEN MORE CAPITAL in order to
raise and sustain prices!

it's nothing but "passing on" HIGHER costs to newer and newer
generations, who in turn need to sell at HIGHER prices to NEWER and
NEWER generations! How else would stock/index prices be sustained?

what's so hard to get the fact that ALL buyers who WANT TO MAKE MONEY,
which is MOST of the buyers, they need to SELL at HIGHER and HIGHER
prices! This implies an infinitely increasing share price, and
infinitely increasing capital in flow into the market

"sooner than later" meaning: until there's no more buyers left to buy
and sell at higher and higher prices and therefore the ponzi scheme
collapses and the ones who bought at the highest prices lose money
while the ones who bought at low prices make money, = ponzi scheme

look at CNTF, it's going up because newer buyers are not only buying
at higher prices, but expecting to SELL at higher prices as well! This
implies an infinitely increasing share price! Just passing on higher
costs to newer and newer investors who need to pass on higher costs to
newer investors until the share price becomes too high, or there's not
enough capital to sustain the pyramid, then it collapses

I still believe you forget two things

First: Real growth in societies over time WILL in some degree
transform to more money among people. A fraction of these money goes
into stockmarkets. Therefore stockmarkets constantly will be feeded by
more and more money. (As long as there is real growth in society)

Second: Investors may take profit/loss in a stock by selling, but the
provenue goes back in the market in buying new stocks for the money.
Investors dont eventually pull out of the market. Out of a single
stock perhaps, but money stays in the market because invested in
another stock for a replacement- not withdrawn to a bankaccount. Most
investors find it exciting to invest - And this proces will be the
primary driver to them - the adrenalin rush (so to say) - not the
money/product itself. MONEY STAYS INVESTED. For the fun of it.

There is a moral note to this.

If companies do bad they will be punished by dissapointed investors
and it will be revealed to everybody because of selling and bad/low
stockprice. If good vica verca. And that to me seems like a good thing
because good companies rewarded and bad leadership/companies punished.
The most efficient way of having such a system is by having investors
and stockmarket.

Stockmarket and IPO´s other function for the company is to "lend"
money, and put them into work by create business and ultimatly employ
people and pay wages. That is also a good thing. People makes a living
from those wages.

LOL, the idea that stock markets will constantly be feeded by MORE and
MORE money is ludicrous, the bubble WILL eventually pop. And real
growth in society ISN'T INFINITE

what?

this is wrong, many times investors do pull out of the market when
they made lots of money. And this is still irrelevant to the fact that
a FIXED supply of money in the market will make it collapse since more
money is needed in order to raise prices, this doesn't refute the law
that losers are required in order to have winners

this doesn't make any sense, you're grabbing at straws here. Investors
are able to invest until they lose all their money because it's a zero-
sum game

not really, good/bad companies are rewarded or punished by their
customers, the ones who actually get the product/service,  and this
STILL doesn't refute the fact that losers are required in the stock
market for their to be winners when trading in stocks

after the IPO, a company's stock price doesn't really affect its
performance, whereas customers do

but this relies on the IPO passing on the costs to newer investors for
higher and higher prices! In which those investors need to sell at
HIGHER PRICES, and so on and so on, until prices are too high and BAM
the pyramid busts and people lose while others win