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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (7279)	7/27/1999 1:12:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Check Mate, Ron. You played your hand out on this thread and lost all credibility this past Saturday, July 24. Well, at least thank you for providing me an actual date that you decided this occurred. You are looking to preserve the Economic Bubble here in the USA. And you are seeking to destroy it, I take it, despite the fact that 10s of millions of people are looking to the markets for their retirement income. And one the real problems is that only a relatively small number of stocks are in "bubble" status. The broader measure of the overall stock market is undervalued. Blame this distortion on the prevailing tendency for institutions to invest in only the cream of the S&P and Nas100 stocks. They have truely distorted this market beyond belief and that is one element that has created your so-called "bubble". The other is what we have discussed via PM, and that is the baby boomers making their mark on this economy. The Japanese markets went through a similar event during the '80s as the money just continued to pour into their markets. And now these Japanese boomers are heading toward retirement and are COMPLETELY unwilling to risk the savings they accrued during their hey-days. The '90s are the dreadful hangover they are suffering from their unabandoned partying during the '80s. The US can look forward to a similar event somewhere around 2010-2015. And market correction in between will likely be short-lived as the money from 401k plans continues to pour in at its monthly rate, buying stocks, buying real-estate, buy foreign stocks... etc. That is why you look to discredit the invaluable information presented on this thread; for you are afraid that the Information presented on this thread will help cause the Stock Market Bubble to burst, causing economic collapse. I don't discredit "invaluable" information. But I haven't seen much from you, bearcub, and our resident thread troll. We had this discussion via PM, yet you chose to try to "discredit" me personally, even though my logic is fundamentally very sound and you wish to simply blow off the earning and buying power of the major force that brought us fast food during the '60s, the real-estate bubble of the '70s-80s, and the stock market bubble currently in progress. You simply CANNOT ignore the Baby Boomers and their ability to impact and distort traditional market models/valuations I know these facts are sound because the performance of the past 10 years has born it out. And minus a self-created financial meltdown where everyone decides to take all their money outta the banks, moves to the hills, and destroy everything they've worked so hard to build, any setback to our markets from Y2K will likely be temporary (6-12 months tops). There is just too much money sloshing around out there in retirement plans and I don't think that Clinton or Greenspan are going to permit this economy to go into complete economic lock-up like you expect. That money may leave stocks temporarily, but it will find its way into bonds and money market accounts. It cannot be withdrawn without incurring the substantial penalty for early withdrawal And one final reason that the US markets are so strong and at such high P/Es is that the capital once deployed in emerging markets continues to move from the global periphery to its center. Y2K will only exacerbate that effect should the problem be as bad overseas as many posit. Until emerging markets can regain their feet AFTER Y2K, the US markets will continue to be a relatively "safe harbor". Take your best shot at that logic, Mr. Ph.d... <VBG> You're the one offering nothing but fear. I'm trying to inject some reality into the equation that you conveniently have chosen to exclude from your analysis. Just like that professor of mine who was educated far beyond his intelligence.... :0) (to audience: that's a private joke between him and I) Regards, Ron

To: Rarebird who wrote (7279)	7/27/1999 3:41:00 AM
From: Ken	Respond to of 9818

<DOD instructed all commanders to..go to war..widespread y2k-related critical infrastructure failures> DOD Prioritizes Y2K Problems -- State and Local Community Assistance Takes Back Seat to Military Operations (Daniel Verton, Federal Computer Week) fcw.com Much of this is old news, but it is interesting how this set of issues is making "news" now. Of course, FCW is not exactly "mass" media, and this is not likely to be explored much in the mainstream press, at least not in the specific context of Y2K, as we shall see. But it's all over the web. A snip: "The Defense Department has instructed all military commanders to maintain their units' ability to go to war in the event of widespread Year 2000-related critical infrastructure failures, relegating local community assistance to the bottom of the department's priority list. Local commanders at military installations across the United States and abroad will be authorized to 'undertake immediate, unilateral, emergency response actions that involve measures to save lives, prevent human suffering or mitigate great property damage' in the event of catastrophic infrastructure failures, according to a recent memorandum signed by deputy secretary of Defense John Hamre. But the fundamental message contained in the memo is: maintain 'go to war' readiness. As a result, the lion's share of the responsibility for local assistance is likely to fall on the shoulders of the National Guard, experts said." At the same time, this next piece appeared in the Washington Post --