<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/28/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:brent.allsop@comcast.net">brent.allsop@comcast.net</a></b> <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@comcast.net">brent.allsop@comcast.net
</a>> wrote:</span><br><div><br>[snip] <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Aren't there any smart people that know what really occurred somewhere?
</blockquote><div><br>This is the first I've heard of such (that computer problems may have played a role).<br><br>The NY Times seems to be blaming lack of confidence in the Chinese markets which are in turn feeding back into the
U.S. markets. But the Chinese markets were being fed involving questions about the strength of the U.S. market (sounds like a recipe for a feedback loop similar to Black Monday but displaced in time and form).<br><br>Interesting in that the number I've seen cited on the news is a loss of $623 billion. That is about half of amount I estimated as a requirement for the development of real nanotech (> $1T) about 5 years ago. So it would seem that having or not having real nanotech is getting to the point of being "chump change" in the markets.
<br><br>Robert<br><br></div></div><br>