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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (68603)	10/4/1999 12:35:00 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Donlan was totally out to lunch I agree, the bubble popping part was plain silly. However, he made a decent recovery in Part II ("Why do the Feds underwrite preventable disasters?"). If he had just been able to make the analogy between the first and second editorials . . . Tom P.S. I just fired this off to Mr. Donlan: <<< Your first editorial, "A bubble is not as dangerous as a person who wants to pop it", is ridiculous. However, your second, "Why do the Feds underwrite preventable disasters?" is excellent. If you could make the connection between the two, you'd have a brilliant piece. Last fall, the U.S. bubble was in the process of popping WITHOUT Fed intervention. Then, along came the Fed to patch the bubble up, and blow it bigger. Just as underwriting preventable disasters encourages people to repeat old mistakes, this Fed policy of cushioning markets that deserve to be washed out has enabled the current bubble. >>>

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (68603)	10/4/1999 12:38:00 PM
From: Cynic 2005	Respond to of 132070

Mike, I liked Olstein's style. He made no bones about his disdain for many of the investmen fads of today. I loved the part when Olstein said, "that's what happens when lunatics are running the asylum!" (He was referring to mo-mo day traders) -g-