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 : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (2812)	1/3/2001 4:20:59 PM
From: Robert Douglas	Respond to of 3536

Sam, I agree, the Fed was simply following the market - again. But look, we still have a Fed funds rate at 6% and an inverted yield curve. The NAPM is in recession territory and auto sales have crashed. The Fed needs to ease until we have a positively sloped curve. That's still 200 basis points away. If unemployment moves up a half point by spring, we will have it, IMO.

To: Sam who wrote (2812)	1/3/2001 5:04:46 PM
From: Paul Berliner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Sam, thank you for your comments, but I feel that there is no reason to cut INTERMEETING. Its ridiculous - there is no liquidity crisis. Such actions should only be exercised in situations such as the fall of 1998 (LTCM, etc.), or else they will lose there potency when the time comes that this type of sentiment-booster is really needed. Also, there is already no more surplus. They were counting on cap gains to feed the planned surplus. Those cap gains are now vaporized. There is no more surplus. Their actuarial tables took the assumption that a certain amount of cap gains would be netted and upon which taxes would be paid. That assumption is no longer valid. p.s. what does this mean? since the BC team is going to push for their cuts no matter what to repay their nearly half trillion debt to their supporters