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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: herringbone_100 who wrote (17677)	12/27/2000 12:25:23 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

and then let it 'poof' without warning (most don't watch the market's daily gyrations and couldn't see the writing on the wall) except for a garbled 'irrational exuberance' speech last year. The Fed gave ample warning time for those who were willing to listen. Greenspan's comment about "irrational exuberance" was made when the Dow was around 6000. He then went on to talk about asset inflation for at least a year. Investors even had a chance to exit AFTER the FED began raising rates....people didnt listen because the NAZ kept going up. Simply put...they were blinded by greed. Many investors knew they were gambling. Note the use of gambling terms like "parley" when people talk about turning $10,000 into $100,000 through IPO's. For those who dont believe that Greenspan should have targeted asset prices....I am curious when you think the NAZ would have been overvalued. If it had hit 10,000 do you think that would have been ok? At some point, a dot-com collapse would have endangered the institutions (banks, hedge funds, mutual funds). If your neighbor down the street goes belly-up because he invested in dot-coms, you feel bad....if your neighbor's bank goes down, many would panic. It is this type of situation which Greenspan wanted to avoid. Slacker

To: herringbone_100 who wrote (17677)	12/27/2000 9:18:04 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

It is still Congress the President that nominates the Chairman and Congress that ratifies these nominations. Twice a year now, the Chairman is supposed to come before Congress and explains his "machinations", and unlike in the past, now the FOMC minutes are published and they even make a statement at 2:15 when they end their meeting. It is much more open than it used to be. When the founding fathers decided that Congress has the power to mint..., they surely did not think that once a month a Congressman will man the printing machine, they probably thought of a mechanism that will be under congressional control, and the Fed (every so often....<g>) are. Zeev Zeev

To: herringbone_100 who wrote (17677)	12/27/2000 11:41:17 PM
From: Craig Freeman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

herringbone_100, welcome to History 101! The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1913 as follows: "Amendment XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Federal Reserve Act came later in that year. There are huge numbers of people who claim that the Fed Act never passed Congress and/or that we are not obliged to honor the 16th Amendment. But most of the "serious" complainants are currently in jail. Details on the Federal Reserve Act can be found at: ddi.digital.net Given it's length, one is more likely to find people walking the streets who have read every word of the King James Bible than those who have even "skimmed" The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Alan Greenspan hadn't even hit puberty by 1913 and I can't imagine anyone -- even my own father -- using the Fed Act as "bathroom material". Given that few guard the law and many administrate it, the Fed works more independently than any other part of government except the "CIA". Craig reply to: <he is just doing what the constitution gave him the power to do> 'Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value, thereof...' the federal reserve act in 1913 produced the 'fed'. they haven't been here all along since the inception of the us constitution. my one beef with the fed is the public conception of them as an official u.s. arm of the government, like the treasury. they are not, they came along as a 'cartel' of bankers and are still a cartel of bankers today. their monetary policy may be good or bad (i agree with your assessment of current stance and don't see any reason for immediate lowering of rates) but i find it annoying that 9 out of 10 believe the 'fed' to be a legitimate branch of the u.s. government. they are a cartel of bankers (with their own interests and concerns) providing a service to the u.s. they are not liable or held accountable to the american public as they are not u.s. public officials. that said, i don't think we should burn AG at the stake... maybe just dangle him by this thumbnails for an hour or two. it is difficult for me to get past the fact that many people i personally know (o.k., their own greed contributed) have seen their retirement money get 'poofed' away.... the average american believes AG is 'god' and largely responsible for the economic prosperity we have enjoyed for the last 8 years... that may be so or it may not be so. but, as you noted, the fed created the naz 'explosion' or bubble... and then let it 'poof' without warning (most don't watch the market's daily gyrations and couldn't see the writing on the wall) except for a garbled 'irrational exuberance' speech last year. my point is, how about a little disclosure to the american public?? why doesn't the fed clarify who and what they are... and what their interests are, i.e. global monetary policy, not just u.s.... or maybe they have, and americans just don't want to believe that there is no Wizard in Oz. just us munchkins <g>