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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (53931)	1/4/2001 10:02:13 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Flats, I have no interest in defending Bush. I blame both parties for the current mess. what does get to me is how the press and academia decried the 1980s for it's trade deficits, excess greed, deficit spending by gov't, the little guy was left behind. Now we there is conspicuous silence about the record current account deficits, inequity of wealth distribution, unprecedented private debt excesses, the blatant distortions of GDP and productivity created by hedonics. The damage has already been done it is only a question of when we suffer for our excesses. Let me emphasize- I BLAME BOTH PARTIES! Mike

To: flatsville who wrote (53931)	1/4/2001 10:17:21 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<For what seems like years now, day in, day out, I have been listening to this thread howl and whine about moronic monetary policy, the bubble, redistribution of wealth...yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, ad nauseum... Then suddenly I notice a majortiy of thread participants supporting a politician whose stated intent will make the bubble bigger and guarantee a further redistribution of wealth the likes of which we haven't seen.> Excuse me, but both major candidates represent the status quo. If anything the conservative party is more likely to represent free markets. DAK

To: flatsville who wrote (53931)	1/4/2001 10:39:24 AM
From: Oblomov	Respond to of 436258

Flats, I agree that politics is relevant to the market. And the phenomena that you mention (spiking the monetary punch-bowl, market bubble, wealth redistribution) are likely to be continued under GWB, if he can help it. My problem with politics (as it is practiced today) is that it has become a mere power struggle - no one seems interested in discussing the real question, which is "what is the proper role of government?" If this question were asked, it might result in the circumscription of the limitless ambition of our rulers. Much of political argument today is just the taking of sides. The debaters spout predictable rhetoric to one another, and nobody is convinced or enriched by the exchange. The participants approach the problems of the day with preconceptions about what the solutions should be, without ever having entirely understood the problem. This doesn't seem productive to me. I'm happy to discuss politics if the discussion can be more than a game of rhetorical ping-pong. -g-

To: flatsville who wrote (53931)	1/4/2001 12:09:46 PM
From: Craig Richards	Respond to of 436258

As long as you're talking politics, did you notice this article in the Times? Looks like a member of CFZ has been appointed Bush's top economic advisor - maybe this is who Heinz really is? <gg> nytimes.com The Adviser: Contrarian of Boom Decade Put in Bush Inner Circle While America celebrated a decade of prosperity, Lawrence B. Lindsey spent the 1990's warning of an imminent economic tightening. Consumers were spending far beyond their means, he said. The nation depended too much on foreign lending. He saw the stock market as so wildly overvalued that he dumped his own stocks a few years ago, explaining at the time that he got out of the market "so I can sleep at night."