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 : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee who wrote (6521)	2/20/2000 3:46:00 PM
From: red jinn	Respond to of 24042

lee: thanks for your response. since i think OT topics sd be primarily done offline, i was going to write this as a pm (as i will all other responses), but since it's sunday afternoon.... first, i can't remember the literary term for it (synecdoce?), but it's clear that uncle al is only one vote and you need 7 on the board. he's the most influential though and i know i was, and i wd guess mehitabel too, using him as a stand-in for the whole. my points don't change just b/c you expand the number of individuals from 1 to 12. second, while i appreciate the links you researched and brought to our attention, the point is whether you think the economy can be "managed." i agree that monetary policy is more important than interest rates and can critically affect the economy. see friedman/schwartz's monetary history re the idiocy that caused the great depression. (we can say "idiocy" now b/c we better understand the effects of monetary policy and the disastrous effects of the smoot-hawley tariff act. what will be the next "idiocy" is what nobody seems to know, including imho greenspan). it was with this in mind that i was orinally miffed with bill's statements to the effect (i thought) that alan's (i.e., the frb's) interest rate shennanigans were principally responsible for our economy's success. we don't even know the lag effects of interest rate and monetary-creation policy shifts, although the latter has been estimated to be about 9 months (friedman, et al.). we also seem to have blithely accepted the idea that we can never have deflation, which is what you wd get with a constant monetary supply and increasing productivity. defaltion wd be fine w/ me. it's just that few people seem to want a rational discussion of this idea (and many others) b/c it's hard to think/know about them, not to mention finding the time. the anti-deflation rationale i suppose is that people associate falling prices with a depression. otoh, if we had falling prices, we wouldn't have all been shifted into higher tax brackets automatically by inflation, weak or strong, which of course is the most insidious effect of inflation, at least it was before the effect was recognized and indexing of tax brackets was considered (although it took a republican congress i might add to do something about it). indexing doesn't (i think) do away with the effects of the alternative minimum tax though. finally, i don't think it's fair to say/suggest kudlow is full of rubbish. he was chief economist for bear stearns (i think) and he also, i suspect, was using greenspan as a reference to the whole of the frb. i'd be willing to bet he read the report. suffice to say that reasonable people can differ about economic policies, and it's too glib to say ag's policies are "right" and kudlow's "wrong" without thinking about many other considerations, all of which are too lengthy to go into on a thread devoted to jdsu. i will close by being so bold as to say, the human capacity for cognitive dissonance (i.e., you'll believe what you want to believe to support your conclusions - and i don't mean to accuse you personally of cd) is almost unlimited. and economic policy is so complex that to parse everyone's statements on the thread (you'd need a couple of books just to start) is just impossible. conclusions in this area have a habit of being dependent on philosophical underpinnings, e.g., are you conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc., and those bases can't fully be vetted on the thread either. that said, thanks for participating in the debate. best regards, red jinn

To: Lee who wrote (6521)	2/21/2000 12:25:00 AM
From: MileHigh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

I believe you are wrong. The charter may say the VOTE on everything (and they do) but dig a little deeper. They vote the first time, sort of like a straw poll to get a feeling of where everyone stands, then each member has a chance to elaborate on the reasons for their vote (raise, no change, lower) Well, guess who speaks last? Yes, you are right, Alan! Then they vote again for the final time. And guess what? In the past 5 years (or something close to that) the members as a whole HAVE NEVER voted against Mr. Green Jeans. Lesson: Reality -vs- Perception; or How the world really works.... Regards, MileHigh