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 : Ariba Technologies (Nasdaq-ARBA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spytrdr who wrote (1446)	11/21/2000 10:33:23 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 2110

Not to be outdone, MSDW issues immediate (burnin' down the house) STRONG SELL rating on JUNIPER ...

To: Spytrdr who wrote (1446)	11/23/2000 9:40:15 AM
From: Steve Powers	Respond to of 2110

>i have no position in AMZN, but as i saw the online retailers like ETYS, BYND, EGGS, etc, go to zero during all this time, i always wondered what a terrible tragedy for mankind would be if Amazon ever floundered under the weight of its debt and the current intolerant market environment and lack of financing I thought AMZN was floundering because they went after revenue growth while receiving razor thin margins... if you have a problem with their 'lack of financing' then maybe you'd be willing to loan them some cash? I use AMZN all the time because I like the service they offer but I don't see a Fed loosening as the solution to their problem. - Steve

To: Spytrdr who wrote (1446)	11/27/2000 3:07:33 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2110

i always wondered what a terrible tragedy for mankind would be if Amazon ever floundered under the weight of its debt and the current intolerant market environment and lack of financing. That's your idea of a "terrible tragedy for mankind?" You should read more history. Much more compelling tragedies befall us all the time. I use Amazon. But if they disappeared tonight, and I needed to buy a book tomorrow, I would go to Barnes & Noble or W.H. Smith or Fatbrain or OpAmp or whatever. Amazon was nominally in the book business, but it's pretty clear that their real business has been moving numbers from Column A to Column B fast enough to keep the suckers guessing. It's not Greenspan's job to finance failing ventures by printing money as though there's no tomorrow, which is precisely what he was doing at the end of 1999. Taking back those last few rate cuts was necessary this year. Dave

To: Spytrdr who wrote (1446)	11/27/2000 12:58:41 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2110

I agree with you 100%. My biggest problem with AG is that he always goes too far with his bias and creates the need for a whole new cycle of intervention in the opposite direction. Just as there was no need for 3 FED cuts following the Russian bankrupcy (1 emergency rate cut included), there was no need for the final 50 basis point hike this summer. I don't understand why people think he is such a great Fed Chairman. For one, I really disagree with him, clinton, gore, and rubin when it comes to deciding what should be done with the budget surplus. They want to pay down the debt before any tax relief is given. I would argue that tax relief would sustain the economic growth that will be necessary to repay the debt. It's the reverse of Cold War Keynesian observations about the velocity of money supply. They used to argue that gov't spending would accelerate the rate of the money supply and help redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. However, given the inefficiency of government spending and investing (a 2% return on social security vs. 6% for government Treasuries), the reduction of individual taxes and government spending would promote higher levels of savings, higher rates of return, and higher levels of consumption. If they think that unemployment is too low, I suggest they start eliminating the government agencies that the Republicans sought to cut back during the Bush administration. The one nagging question in my mind is who are the taxpayers employing with their federal withholding? Who could reasonably argue that a peace based economy such as ours with low unemployment levels should be taxing citizens up to 50% of their income, not to mention 7% for Social Security and 1% for Medicare. I think the most annoying part of the liberal tax agenda is that they fail to point out that the 2 programs that are seeking to protect are itemized separately from out federal withholding - social security and medicare. When you take the 45% federal withholding, the 1% medicare, and 7% social security, the total federal withholding approaches 53%. Add on the 7% state and 3% city withholding, eliminate all of the itemized tax reductions when you exceed a certain income level, and the only thing saving you any taxes is your mortgage. It's pure socialism for the upper 1%. We have nothing short of a tyranny of the majority in this country. It's too bad that the concept of conservative economics have been abandoned for so long. I think we can replace terms like trickle down economics or the Laffer Curve with some contemporary policies that reflect on the waste of government discretion. For example, if the government is to act as the fiduciary for our retirement future, they should be held accountable to fair and reasonable returns that could be sought out in government bonds. Why should we auction off the bonds to foreign investors when we could easily buy them for ourselves?