Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (46258)	7/15/2003 2:00:49 PM
From: Casaubon	Read Replies (3) of 52237

Haim, your politics are influencing your interpretation of what what he said. 1. that the US does not need a manufacturing base to prosper In fact he said, the nature of manufacturing has changed a great deal (it has become more tech oriented. As such, a higher degree of education is necessary to perform these jobs). He intimidated that old line manufacturing jobs are in decline (because they are no longer cost competetive with newer methods) and there is high growth in "tech related manufacturing". He also said that manufacturing jobs have been in steady decline for many years and even with that steady decline the US enjoyed only a 4% rate of unemployment during the boom years. He also played down the significance of the flight of manufacturing jobs because the US still enjoys a relatively low (about 6%) unemployment rate, even after the bursting of the stock market bubble. It is disingenous of you to put words in his mouth. If you take issue with any of the numbers he has put forth and wish to construct a logical argument from your alternative source of facts, please do so. But, do not think we are mindless followers who can not form our own conclusions from information which is put forth. 2. that budget deficits really do not matter .... if the economy will recover Greenspan is a proponent of lower taxes (not budget deficits). He was suggesting that if there is top line growth, then higher revenues collected through taxation would abrogate the budget deficits. He was not supporting the case the budget deficits do not matter. In fact, Greenspan has always conferred the opinion that budget defecits will ultimately result in higher interest rates, which would have a deleterious effect on growth, especially in a nascent recovery. Again, if you wish to put forth alternative arguments, please support them with facts and stop incorrectly paraphrasing the positions and conclusions put forth by someone else.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next