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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Corner Bay Silver (BAY.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I_C_Deadpeople who wrote (1418)	10/5/2000 9:17:21 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4409

(good times) are quite the opposite of reality. Where do you live? East LA? The stock market LEADS, it does not FOLLOW. Then in late '99 you didn't think the NAZ was forming a bubble. I see you haven't learned that the stock market accounts for the past and only occasionally discounts the future (see Paul Samuelson). It's hard to be a stock market operator without that comprehension. The market rises creating a sense of "things being good" and it crashes before "things seem bad". Conditions which create a sense of things being good, also create a rising stock market. The stock market doesn't create things being good and the sense is always built on the reality even if the stock market looks backwards to sense them. You must have a mistaken notion of what the wealth effect is. It isn't what AG and the popular press would lead you to believe. I get it. You are a true believer in the stock market reacting to itself. When it is doing that just what is it discounting? The proof is in 1929 when the herd thought the fun would never end It never did. All anyone had to do was hold their stocks. Margin greed is what cleaned the speculators just like it did this year. The herd didn't get cleaned in '29 nor this year, because the herd, the majority, kept right on holding. You don't hear that because the text books writers who come from the socialist universities don't want to expose anything that may undermine their war on wealth. and in the 50's where , if your thinking was correct, we should have had the largest stock market in history but did not. How large should it have been? I think it was that large. The growth rate and earnings growth in the 50's far exceeds that of today. If you must make material claims, then you should investigate and make sure your facts are solid. It is easy to refute your above claim outside of looking it up. Productivity growth in the '50s is nowhere near what it has been for the last seven years. Your challenge is to figure out why that refutes you out of hand. I bet you can't do it. Read Robert Prechter's books on the Wave Principle and Socioeconomics to get the real scoop on this stuff. Prechter is an amateur who made some mediocre calls in the early '80s and then was hoisted up the media flagpole and became the self fulfilling guru. He fumbled miserably around the '87 crash and ever since he's been completely bagged because he tried to put his hack ideas onto the world. You can't do that and succeed. If Prechter wants to learn how to use the concepts vaguely expressed by Elliot, he will have to talk to me, because he doesn't know them. There's no point because there is no value in it. You see the waves after the fact, but what overrides any of that is the Ahhaha Uncertainty Principle.