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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7196)	11/4/2000 11:58:27 PM
From: Rashomon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, I can't get into the details, but I have very good, first-hand reason to believe the 90+ percent figure for Korean bank bad loans is real. Also, Japanese financials will likely follow the most pessimistic rather than the most optimistic numbers. Take that FWIW.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7196)	11/5/2000 2:48:06 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, <<If at the same time, we in the US have a Bush administration writing huge tax cut laws, Greenspan will not be able to come to the rescue with "lose money", and then we get an extremely severe bear market. If Gore gets elected and still keeps balancing the budget and minimal surpluses (big surpluses are deflationary), the decline might not be too severe, and might end by Spring with Greenspan once more stepping into the breach. So, fasten your seat belt.>> Your reading of the consequences of the election is the same as mine. I just cannot for the life of me understand why some people apparently think that they are "voting their pocketbook" by voting for Bush. Bush's tax cuts will not only cause both government cutbacks and deficits, but also higher rates. Whatever is gained by his cuts will be lost--or more than lost--by interest rates being higher than they would otherwise be. This seems so obvious to me that I can't see why everyone doesn't see it. I'm not trying to provoke an argument here or even a political discussion (that is why I am not posting on some of the fanatical coffee shop boards with the political crazies), but can anyone tell me why Bush's tax cuts wouldn't be a disaster for our--and thus the world--economy? Sam

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7196)	11/5/2000 5:00:42 AM
From: Grashopper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Your prediction of a Asia malaise may be correct but it is always suspect when you quote Paul Erdmann since as i recall he is the original doom and GLOOM guy ; the total pessimist who predicred something akin to the end of the world.......i am still half asleep so perhaps another lurker can refresh my memory as to Erdmann's prior end of the world predictions.TIA

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7196)	11/6/2000 12:37:26 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, If at the same time, we in the US have a Bush administration writing huge tax cut laws, Greenspan will not be able to come to the rescue with "lose money", and then we get an extremely severe bear market. If Gore gets elected and still keeps balancing the budget and minimal surpluses (big surpluses are deflationary), the decline might not be too severe, and might end by Spring with Greenspan once more stepping into the breach. So, fasten your seat belt. Huh? The Democrats (Clinton notwithstanding for 6 of the 8 years) have tended to be the reason that we have such a huge deficit, and they have not been typically worried about overspending (remember, we'd now have a wonderfully expensive nationalized healthcare system if Clinton hadn't been slapped around after the first two years; if nothing else, he learned a lesson from losing both houses of Congress). It's Congress that puts together the budget. We started running the deficit up, if I remember correctly, during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, to finance their war in Vietnam. Then, the Democratic Congress still couldn't control itself during the Reagan years and overspent like crazy (I will grant you, of course, that Reagan signed the budgets). Finally, the Republican Congress during Clinton's years have provided budgets that haven't broken the bank. And, last but not least, a major reason for today's surplus is due to the bankrupting of the USSR resulting from the Reagan administration policies as well. Historically, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, that have been far more fiscally responsible. Having said that, I'm sure you're aware that I don't really consider myself a Republican nor a Democrat at this point. I believe the Democrats have a better view of social issues, but that the average Democratic politician couldn't manage his/her way out of an economic paper bag. OTOH, the Republicans have done a better job historically managing the finances of the country, but at this time, the average Republican politician can't be trusted to care about anyone beyond his/her next door neighbor, if that. I think we need to keep a balance of both in government to make certain that all sides are heard. The interesting thing I've been hearing more and more this election season (much more than I've heard it in past elections) is that this "balanced government" is expected to provide the best chance for continued economic growth. My personal belief is that if given a Democratic Congress, Al Gore's desire to balance the budget would disappear faster than you can say "I created the Internet". Or else he'd balance it by simply raising the marginal tax rates to a more "reasonable" 60 to 70% on the "wealthy". I'm sorry, is my distrust of Democratic fiscal management skills showing <G>. Just to level out the insults, I'm also incredibly worried that with an all-Republican government, everyone would have a chance to get and retain their wealth, as long as they were white, went to church regularly, had never had an abortion (or knew anyone who had), and carried at least two concealed weapons. Remember, a vote for balanced government is a vote to do away with extremism at either end of the political spectrum! JM4C, Dave