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: BGR who wrote (73434)	1/13/2000 12:48:00 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

I don't see how the PPI can stay "tame" much longer with oil prices headed on up [there was a temporary misprint on CNN commodities showing them almost at $30--edited change]. There hasn't even been much cold weather this winter to affect inventories. But given the current figure, comparable to the better times of the 1950s and 1960s, a bond rate of under 5% would seem appropriate. The US would be hit much harder by really high oil prices than any other countries--since, as we all know, the tax component of gasoline is several times that of the US in most countries. So a 100% rise in gasoline prices here would be only a 25% rise in England. Imagine the effect of seeing regular gasoline at $2.50 at the pump. I admit that as the owner of a 40 mpg Tercel I would have a secret schadenfreude festival.

To: BGR who wrote (73434)	1/13/2000 12:49:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, But part of what the new pair of dimers are trying to do is change history to conform to their perceptions, which is why they say real rates are low. Of course, given the huge asset inflation, the bond traders say they are right. <g>