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.

Pastimes : ASK Vendit Off Topic Questions -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fubsy cooter who wrote (17414)	12/21/2000 2:55:49 AM
From: Walkingshadow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19374

fubsy, << the bubble blew up, for a large part due to Greenspan's recent policies. >> Perhaps I misunderstand, but you say that the stock market bubble was primarily due to AG, but it seems you also imply that the primary force driving overvalued bubble markets is easing of money supply. I disagree with both, and in the case of the implication, could cite dozens of examples of overvalued market bubbles in many things (not just stocks) which had nothing whatever to do with money supply, and occurred in all types of credit environments. Those in a position to contribute to the generation of market bubbles will---unless opposed---because they stand to gain tremendously. And if they're slick, they stand to gain just as much by the bubble bursting, as well. I think the vast majority are. Still: Bubbles are greed driven. Popping bubbles are fear driven. Both are highly manipulated. In cooperation with the rest of the FOMC, Alan Greenspan controls central bank lending policy, not human emotion, not speculator manipulation, not hype/de-hype pump and dump mills, not talking heads working very hard for big brokerage houses to move retail money to professional clients, not 20/20 hindsight financial press, in witting or unwitting collusion to accomplish the same. Matter of fact, it strikes me that the above forces would like you to believe just that: AG is a major driving force for stock market movements. To the extent that you are focusing on what AG does, and think it important, then just to that extent might you commit funds accordingly, putting your money where your mouth is. And once the general retail public is convinced that the market will react a certain way to AG actions, and commits funds accordingly---well, then that's the signal for those in a position to do so to take the market exactly the opposite way, again transferring retail capital to professional investors. And, I would submit that that is precisely what happened with this month's FOMC. Funny how all the financial press was echoing the same thing, mantra-like. And how completely wrong they were. Yet again. And, funny how most of the sentiment on the threads is pretty much in agreement with your views. In other words, IMHO, they accomplished exactly what they set out to do; we've played into their hands again. Am I overly suspicious? Too cynical? Maybe. But I've never forgotten what someone once told me, who survived living on the streets of South Central and Skid Row LA, and in reference to which he said: You better* have an angle. If you don't have an angle, then you are the angle.* Just strikes me that the only difference between the markets he was talking about and the markets we talk about is that there's much more at stake in ours, and what occurs is formalized, protected by law, and enforced by big money. But the basic admonition is a point well taken just the same. As always, JMVHO............ Regards, Walkingshadow