Over at Mini-Microsoft, the Redmond insiders who frequent the site’s comments are incredulous over the layoff rumors, insisting that they are baseless. Costs will be cut, they say, but they will be cut through attrition and reduction in open headcount. “For the last time folks–THERE ARE NO LAYOFFS HAPPENINGS IN JANUARY,” writes one Mini-Microsoft commenter. “Beyond Jan…well we dont have a crystal ball–but if the economy doesn’t improve and the company misses targets–it would get uglier for everyone–from no raises/no bonuses to (maybe) cutbacks/layoffs… but then, those are the rules of the game in corporate America.”

Appalling. At $11.51, Yahoo’s (YHOO) stock price at this very moment, the company is trading at well below replacement value. “Spend $15 billion, and you could not build a new Yahoo today–not one with this global reach and brand,” Henry Blodget notes over at Silicon Alley Insider. “Wringing compelling upside out of the stock at $12 is not rocket science. At this price, it’s not even basic arithmetic. So we say again: Yahoo at $12 is ridiculous.”

Ridiculous, indeed. Perhaps the government will come along and offer Yahoo a nice $31-per-share bailout–you know, just to bolster investor confidence.

What’s going on here? Who knows. But it might be time for the company to stop reading its press and start thinking seriously about taking some of the cash being flashed its way.

“Facebook has an enormous opportunity, and if the company doesn’t blow it, it could be worth every bit of $15 billion,” writes Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget. “Part of not blowing it, however, means playing the odds, and when investors are literally begging you to take their cash (as they appear to be), the odds almost always favor taking some of it. Why? Because the economy might weaken tomorrow, taking Internet advertising spending down with it. Because a competitor might develop an interesting solution that [CEO Mark] Zuckerberg might want to buy. Because the stock market might crash, converting Facebook’s $15 billion valuation into $5 billion (or less). Because Zuckerberg might do something stupid (sorry–this has to be considered a possibility). Because in all of these cases and more, it would be nice to have $500 million in the bank.”

Earlier this week Blodget–who in 2006 was laying out scenarios for a massive contraction in Google’s price–suggested the company’s shares might someday trade at $2,000. “Remember a couple years back when some analyst floated the idea that Google could eventually be worth $2,000 a share–and was ridiculed from coast to coast?” Blodget wrote. “Well, first it’s worth noting that Google is now almost a third of the way there. Second, it’s worth noting that $2,000 a share would mean a market cap of about $750 billion, which–given a reasonable time horizon–just isn’t that far-fetched.”

Well, according to Peck, Google will soon be just $1,300 from that stratospheric valuation. This morning he set a $700 target on Google shares for year-end 2008. “Google remains one of the best operating companies within our coverage universe, with EBITDA and EPS growth estimated at 21% and 20%, respectively, over the next three to five years,” Peck wrote in a research note to investors. “Google continues to gain market in search queries while continuing to face a bevy of competitors. … Further, Google’s efforts in online video, radio and print have added a layer of value that is absent from its competitors’ portfolio of offerings and which has the potential to yield significant financial rewards.”

That’s right–appalling ad click-throughs. “Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic,” Nick Denton noted in Valleywag earlier this year. “Click-through rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04%–just 400 clicks in every 1m views–according to one report seen by Valleywag.”

And he wasn’t the only one. “Word on the street, Madison Avenue that is, is that advertisers who have experimented and bought ads on Facebook are universally disappointed with the results,” GigaOm’s Bob Young wrote in February. “Consequently, getting these big brands to come back to the table and pony up again with significant ad-buys is going to be very difficult. In other words, Facebook is looking at a foggy fiscal future, and needs to make some tough decisions.”

Like, say … selling itself to Microsoft. That’s what Blodget says. “No, of course we can’t confirm it,” he writes. “But it makes sense, don’t you think? Steve Ballmer, desperate and furious, sick of sucking wind in the Internet game, sick of losing every Internet in-play company and much of the future to You Know Who, sick of feeling like a has-been also-ran, raiding the bank account and snapping up the hottest company on earth. The fly in the ointment: $6 billion’s a nice fat number, but it’s only 1/25th of Google’s valuation, and the Facebook folks clearly think they’re worth more than that. So maybe Steve will have to throw in another $5 or $10. Or $20. Or maybe Mark Zuckerberg will just tell him to go … home.”

Certainly could happen. Or Microsoft could tell Zuckerberg to do the same. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time. In early 2006, Microsoft was rumored to have passed on Facebook, amused that the company had valued itself at $2 billion or so and incredulous that founder Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t make it out of bed for an 8 a.m. conference call to talk to Microsoft execs:

During one series of talks with Microsoft, Facebook executives told their Microsoft peers they couldn’t do an 8 a.m. conference call because the company’s 22-year-old founder and chief executive, Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg, wouldn’t be awake, says a person familiar with the talks. Microsoft executives were incredulous.”

Anyway, if Microsoft truly is considering shelling out that kind of cash for Facebook, I hope it’s got a clever plan to boost the site’s ad click-throughs. Six billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money to hand to someone who can’t always be bothered to take your phone calls.

Amazon hasn’t become the company I hoped it would back when I put that $400 target on it ($67 in today’s split) in December 1998. It’s still a great franchise, though, and I’m still a happy Amazon customer. I don’t own the stock because I expect it to soar. I own it because… well, because I’m going to own it until it breaks through $400 ($67) again or goes bust, whichever comes first. I don’t even follow the company that closely anymore (too depressing). But last night’s quarter, and today’s 25% pop, certainly come as a breath of fresh air.”