lucyyu asked in 新聞與活動最新活動 · 1 decade ago

請問什麼是”網路泡沫”呢?

如題,可麻煩各位幫我解答嗎? 說明一下它的意思,謝囉

1 Answer

Rating
  • Favorite Answer

    近來大家常常提到網路泡沫化,泡沫化這個名詞其背後到底代表何種經濟意義,其所產生的影響到底為何??最近在Fool.com看到一篇相當有趣的文章,作者就泡沫化這個名詞開門見山提出一個很另類、很直接、很有創意的觀點,他說所謂的股市泡沫用一個很簡單的解釋,就是股票的通貨膨漲,而泡沫化本身就是一種膨漲的過程。以下是參考Mr.McCaffery的論點,加上本人的一些不太成熟的看法,希望能拋磚引玉,大家一起腦力激盪,為企業與個人投資的未來,找到一些方向!在現有的經濟社會中我們充份地了解通膨所可能帶來的影響與破壞,基於特定因素某些商品與服務的價格突然的爆漲而相對地減損了交易媒介-貨幣的價值,使得所有經濟資源進行重分配,而通膨具不確定性與破壞性的特色,總是使得經濟社會運作產生重大問題,導致生產、銷售與消費的次序大亂,這在戰亂時期尤為明顯,政府為了籌措軍費投入不具建設性(甚至應該說是破壞性)的戰爭,往往大量印製鈔票或發行債券,使得貨幣的價值日漸貶損,還記得當初國民政府來台,四萬元的舊台幣只能換發一塊錢的新台幣,石油危機引發原料價格爆漲所帶來的通膨造成百業蕭條,生產者剛賣出商品所收到的貨款根本不足以支付下一批已調漲價格的生產原料,所有的資金大幅從能真正創造價值的生產性事業流向抗通膨但卻不具生產性的資源,而扭曲自由經濟社會運作的機制。然而值此承平盛世,前述引發通膨的原因已不復見,只是現在我們所面對的是一種全新且另類的通貨膨漲,但其不確定性與破壞性的本質卻是不變的。股票其實也算是某種商品與服務,就經濟實質上而言,它代表著擁有特定資產如商品、存貨、土地與機械設備的公司的所有權,那麼在股票市場中我們為什麼不能也運用同樣的角度來分析並警告投資人股市泡沫化這種脫序的行為所可能帶來的影響與破壞呢?同樣都是過多的經濟權擁有者追求部份有限的特定資源,當所有投資人同時都想要擁有思科或Amazon的股權,則該公司的股價便開始上漲,而當大家產生投機的預期,認定它有可能會無限制的上漲,便會惜售而囤積居奇,引發更進一步的飆漲,最後大大地超越其實際合理的價值(指相對其他資源的對價),而這些公司一旦發現自己突然擁有這麼多資源,更是信心滿滿大肆地揮豁,不計成本、不問獲利,其結果雖不像戰爭般具破壞性,但其建設性卻大大的令人質疑,(事實上個人認為從更嚴格的角度來看,網路與高科技業者拜公司股價狂飆所賜,吸收大量的社會經濟資源,投入到看似瑰麗實則無用的新事業之上,根據估計當初全美在網路通訊熱潮下所鋪設的光纖網路,目前實際的使用率僅約百分之三,而許多免費的網路資源,如新聞資訊、MP3音樂,對許多舊經濟,如報紙、唱片等存在的價值確實產生極大的威脅,說它不具建設性而有破壞性一點也不為過) 。葛林斯潘擅用數字管理,視通膨為毒蛇猛獸,在他任內成功地為美國營造了連續十年經濟持續成長的榮景,高經濟成長、低失業率、低通膨,美國佬甚至提出新經濟這個名詞用來解釋這種現象,但是個人認為若把股市通膨因素考量進來,則一切可能天旋地轉,當然以我個人這一介土包,妄想要對一代宗師的作為妄下斷語,實在是有如狂犬吠日,不知所云。當今的世界的經濟發展以美國的動向馬首是瞻,幾乎所有新興國家包含中國大陸在內皆以出口到美國,作為其經濟發展的基調,超過一半的經濟資源掌控在美國人手中,然而網路泡沫化所帶來的通膨惡果卻才開始發酵中,美國人如何帶領全世界走出這經濟寒冬,個別國家與個人如何自處,將是全世界拭目以待的事。最後我引用波克夏主要合夥人查理孟格所說的兩段話做為結論,他說︰「網路與科技為整個社會所帶來的利與弊,就好像是葡萄乾跟狗屎一樣,只是把兩者混在一起後,還是一堆狗屎。」Charlie Munger, on the benefits that the Internet and technology are providing to society compared to the evils of stock speculation in these sectors: "When you mix raisins and turds, you've still got turds." 他又說︰「對整個社會來說,網路或許不錯,但對資本家而言,卻絕對是個負數,因為雖然網路能增加企業的效率,但對獲利卻一點幫助有沒有。」"For society, the Internet is wonderful, but for capitalists, it will be a net negative. It will increase efficiency, but lots of things increase efficiency without increasing profits.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------原文網址 http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2001/foth010705.htmB... or Stock Inflation? By Richard McCaffery (TMF Gibson) July 5, 2001Stock prices, just like the prices of other goods and services, rise too quickly sometimes, diminishing the value of a dollar. We understand the forces of inflation in the economy as a whole, so why isn't the concept of inflation also applied to stock markets as a warning to investors that prices get bent out of shape by expectations and market forces?I wonder why the concept of inflation, so widely understood as a force in the economy, isn't used to explain rapid rises in the stock market as well -- say, during times of so-called "market bubbles." Why call it a bubble, leaving everyone to wonder what that means, rather than just calling it inflation?Isn't a rapid rise in stock prices -- beyond levels reasonable investors, economists, and analysts consider rational -- simply market-specific inflation, a kind of localized price increase? We see it in commodities markets all the time. Have you seen the price of gasoline lately? It seems fairly clear that rapidly rising stock prices have a great deal in common with inflation. (I'm very much open to feedback on this idea, by the way. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious.)In a sense, they both are the result of too much money chasing too few goods. When every investor wants to own Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO) or a flashy group of biotechnology stocks, prices for these scarce resources will rise -- at times far beyond their intrinsic value, whatever that elusive number may be. Liquidity is a marvelous thing. It encourages spending, commerce, and growth. It also encourages speculation. This isn't a bad thing. It's good that some folks speculate, since it adds completeness to the market. If nobody was willing to accept additional risk to make a profit, investors looking to hedge an existing risk wouldn't have anyone to trade with. Speculation, of course, can be carried to extremes, and when investors as a whole are pouring money into stocks at highly speculative prices, the system gets inflated. When inflation distorts the information conveyed by prices, people make bad decisions. Just as consumers tend to pour time and money into inflation-beating schemes rather than more productive avenues during periods of rapidly rising prices, investors end up burning up lots of cash buying and swapping overpriced stocks rather than spending money in ways that create real value. Isn't that inflationary behavior?I wonder if some economists are just too wedded to the concept of efficient market theory to recognize that even prices in efficient markets get bent out of shape by inflationary or recessionary forces. It's not clear to me why the economic way of thinking, which provides such flexible tools for understanding the way economies and individual investors behave, doesn't have the same flexibility for understanding the way stock markets behave.I'm not suggesting chucking out the efficient market theory. It explains a lot of what we know about the stock market: It isn't easy to beat an index fund. Opportunities to make a quick buck aren't abundant. But even if stock prices do adjust quickly to reflect economic value -- which is what efficient market theory says -- basic economics says value is subjective. Doesn't it follow from this axiom that prices will get wacky sometimes; say, when the economy is humming along, people start thinking the Internet will make them rich, and demand for stocks skyrockets? Anyway, you might be wondering: If this is true, what's the big deal? Say we call the next stock market bubble an inflationary episode. What's in a name change? For one thing, it would be useful for investors to understand that stocks, like any other product or service, can be mispriced -- not all the time, and not always wildly -- but mispriced just the same.It would be useful for investors to understand that when stocks, just like other assets, products, and services, are rising quickly in price, the purchasing value of the dollar is being diminished, and therefore investors may not be getting much value for the price they're paying. There's a big difference between paying 15 and 50 times earnings for a company's stock, just as there's a big difference between paying $1.50 and $5 for a hamburger. It would also give investors a better understanding of the opportunities available when the pendulum swings the other way and the market slumps -- and a built in bias, perhaps, to think about spending or investing when no one else wants to. This is what Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) Chairman Warren Buffett was talking about when he said the secret to investing is to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.Rather than debating the efficiency of the stock market, or cutely describing the rapid rise of stock prices seen in the late 1990s as a stock bubble, you might do better to simply recognize that inflation plays a role in the stock market as well as the broader economy, and you must be careful. You don't always get what you think you're paying for.參考資料http://www.algerco.net/P900709-%AAw%AAj%A4%C6.htm

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.