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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Torrence who wrote (129730)	12/15/2000 8:39:53 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

Couldn't disagree with you more strenuously. Actually, I just wanted to show some possible implications of the US trade deficit, because I believe many people are not aware of the side effects of such developments. This is not the same Greenspan you remember from the late eighties-early nineties. This might well be the case. Here in Switzerland, our fed opened the (money) floodgates in 87 after the October crash. But the expected recession did not happen and Switzerland (with historically very low inflation) ended up with 7% CPI in 1990. To reinstall the international reputation of price stability, we got immediately very high rates. Combined with some minor disadvantageous economic developments, Switzerland got in a deep recession with high unemployment rates. It took about 8 years to get out of this mess. Maybe my judgment about Mr. Greenspan goes back to this time when I watched jealously Alans more or less brilliant policy. Regards, Boris

To: Mike Torrence who wrote (129730)	12/15/2000 1:23:17 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571040

Greenspan targeted the stock market (especially NAZ) as a result of his phantom inflation fears and has yanked the economy into a possible recession. The Naz may have been a secondary target but the main target was inflation resulting from wage pressures and behind that, oil. As it turned out, the oil price problem came to the forefront almost at the same time as wage pressure began to grow. It looks like now that the rise in wages crested in early/mid fall and oil last week. In light of that, I think Greenspan is right on target with his neutral bias this month. As for the Naz, I can't imagine anyone questioning that it was bubble looking for a needle. My only regret was not taking all my profits in April He doesn't trust productivity growth and is targeting 2-3% economic growth. Why should anyone trust it completely? Its a phenomenom of the '90's and no one can be sure if it will last and/or continue to grow at the pace it has. The latest report indicated that the rate was slowing but no one knows if that's a permanent trend or not. I think its very easy to criticize when one is in the backseat and won't be faulted for a crash should one happen. ;~)) ted .

To: Mike Torrence who wrote (129730)	12/15/2000 3:33:19 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 1571040

William, Re: <This is not the same Greenspan you remember from the late eighties-early nineties.> Bull -- This is the same Greenspan who -- almost single handedly -- caused the '87 crash by jacking rates the month Paul Volker quit and he got in! He was a nitwit then and he's a nitwit now! Strong words to follow! tgptndr (PS -- in case you hadn't guessed, I agree with your strenuous disagreement to boris_a. As I've posted here many times, it's my opinion that the May increase was a major error. I believe it is now too late to correct. Major damage has been done to the world economy and will continue to be done, no matter what the fed does for AT LEAST another 6 months. I'm just hoping, at this point, that we don't see a Japan syndrome -- I don't think we will.)