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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (34761)	8/28/2000 1:49:31 AM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

I don't want this to become a political discussion thread... --- I second that and further ammend that Al Gore is the official candidate of SI SUNW longs and endorsed by it's political action commitee. While there may be the odd 'wierd uncle' like JDN promoting George W or Ralph Nader, Al Gore gets our [X]. <g> -JCJ

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (34761)	8/28/2000 7:07:47 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Dear Charles: Am I too understand it is BAD for me to get back MY OWN MONEY rather than have it wasted on Bloated Buearacratic proposals? As a WCOM shareholder I am growing increasingly concerned about foolish government intervention in businesses they do not understand and for political purposes do not wish to understand. JDN

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (34761)	8/29/2000 12:24:48 AM
From: fuzzymath	Respond to of 64865

Agree, Charles, only economic policies of candidates can be said to be "on topic" -- other policies should not be discussed, as they do not affect SUNW's share price. What we've had for the past 6 years is balanced, centrist, government: a Democrat president who's liberal leanings are tempered by a Republican-led legislature, whose more conservative leanings are tempered by the President's vetos. In that sense, I think everyone has to agree that we've had MODERATE government for the past 6 years, and with moderate government the economy and the markets have thrived. Note that the stock market took off AFTER the Republicans won the House, and divided, moderate government began. Before that it merely continued the gliding post-recession uptrend that was in place under Bush, Sr. Clinton's untempered policies did not produce our boom. It was only after he was forced to work with a Republican legislature and truly be a centrist that our economy and the markets truly revved up. Just look at your stock market chart -- this is so clear! Most of us probably have strong opinions about the upcoming election -- but, clearly it's not as simple as Gore or Bush. A Gore victory will likely bring Democratic leadership of the House, and that will be government like Clinton's first two years, with all the posited big changes in the liberal direction. Likewise, a Bush victory will almost certainly bring Republican control of the House, and since Republican leadership of the Senate is a given, we may see a sharp turn toward more conservative economic policies. My personal guess is that the markets will prefer the latter (Bush and Republican Congress) to the former, if only because Gore is stating that what was done to the tobacco companies by Clinton will be done to oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, health care organizations, etc. Government attacks on companies cause the stocks of those companies to decline. Witness Philip Morris, or even Microsoft. I can't hide my belief that the conservative economics more accurately represents our financial world -- I see no reason whatsoever to bash oil companies for high prices when global demand is soaring -- but, everyone, I think, should realize that whoever wins our election, the 6-year era of split, moderate U.S. government is over. And that will bring with it some uncertainty. Kevin