To: Sam who wrote (12029 ) 2/19/2000 1:56:00 PM From: Hank Stamper Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 15132
"Plenty of stock prices have gone down, are down. In fact, more are down and at levels which most on-lookers would consider to be either fair, cheap or even very cheap." The problem is not with the "plenty of stock prices [that] gone down." Rather, the problem is in what Greenspan calls an "asset bubble." In history, asset bubbles are often associated with run-away inflation. Run-away inflation and asset bubbles are associated often with serious and long-lasting depressions. Surely, one cannot claim we do not now have an asset bubble in a small number of Naz stocks. "Frankly, I find it a little ridiculous that this man who has such a poor stock forecasting record and who claims to " I do not recall Greenspan forecasting the market, ever. "What does he think raising interest rates--which are already historically extremely high, considering real rates--will do? It will affect everyone whether they own stocks or not." Greenspan's thesis is that inflation is far worse for the big and little guy than a recession. Anyone is free to disagree, but no investor should ignore the fact that it is his thesis. "Does anyone else find this--and the notion that the rise in stock prices should be limited in any given year to the rise in income(what a fetish for math this man has!!!)--absurd? Or does every one think that inflation is lurking around the corner? " 1. I don't believe stock prices should be limited, per se. But, when stock prices reach bubble proportions, I fear for the longer term ability of the economy to absorb the consequences. 2. "Inflation lurking." Again, what we believe is not all that relevant. Greenspan believes and, for stock market investors, that's what counts! Ciao, David Todtman