Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Disk Drive Sector Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (6575)	6/11/1999 9:02:00 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 9256

"Who do you think he's talking about? Larry Summers?" You don't think he could've been talking about the guy from Indiana, the guy from Georgia, the guy from Texas (sorry, my aging brain is not doing well with names just now, but hint: Republicans all, and at least two of whom were very vocal in their diatribes against WJC until they were themselves found to have engaged in, shall we say, "hanky panky"). My point simply is, yeah, he could have been thinking of WJC, but he could also have been thinking of any number of other people as well, in and out of public life, indeed, a mass of unnamed people; he could have just had a sense of a general lack of integrity and the senselessness of "it all". Clinton certainly hasn't particularly succeeded in "a material way", even though he clearly has "manipulated associates". So have a lot of people.

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (6575)	6/12/1999 12:49:00 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 9256

OT LK, Stitch, Painting the tape, from the WSJ. "A perfectly normal thing to do": Message 10077476 Think Mr. G-span might have been thinking of some of these fellows when he refers to those who "appear to have succeeded in a material way by cutting corners and manipulating associates"? Note too that the behavior is far from new: "To some market watchers, all the maneuvering is reminiscent of what went on in the 1920s and early 1930s, before the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 outlawed acting jointly to tilt share prices. Until then, some prominent Wall Streeters considered it sport to form pools to influence stocks." I know you know that, but sometimes we focus so much on current chicanery that we at least briefly try to convince ourselves that somehow it was different in a bygone era. And sometimes we think that we don't need any government regulation 'cause "the free market will take care of the excesses". Nonsense. It isn't a question of whether or not to have government regulation, it's a question of how to have government regulation, that's why it's so tricky.