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: UnBelievable who wrote (55575)	1/8/2001 7:43:17 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 436258

Wow, that was GREAT! <At this point, it is a great pity that incoming Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is a good friend of Alan Greenspan. Since Greenspan has been largely responsible, by lax monetary policy, for the bubble's inflation and his current policy is exacerbating the problem not solving it. What the economy needs at this point is for the new administration to request, firmly, Greenspan's immediate resignation to install a new Federal Reserve Chairman -- or rather, re-install an old Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, still active and eager at 73. He might not be attracted by the Fed Chairman's salary, but one trusts that the incoming administration could arrange an $8 million book contract to soften the financial pain of resuming office. Let it be clear: Volcker would not be cutting interest rates with money supply growth at its present level, 8.7 percent per annum in the 18 months to November 2000, and still 5.5 percent in the three months to November. Indeed, Volcker was never really happy with the Fed Funds rate in single digits; his idea of a prudent monetary policy involved something in the high teens. Of course, inflation, thanks to Volcker himself, is lower than it was from 1980 to 1982. So, probably, Volcker would be content with only a moderately tight monetary policy -- say 12 percent on the Fed Funds rate.>> HO HO HO!

To: UnBelievable who wrote (55575)	1/8/2001 7:46:03 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 436258

UB, re The infamous comparison is of course 1927 to 1929, and Keynes and his followers attributed the whole of the Great Depression to the 1920's over-investment and speculation. But actually 1929 values were not as excessive as those in 1999 -- Radio Corporation of America, for example, 1929's Cisco, never got beyond 28 times earnings (and RCA's earnings, unlike Cisco's, did not have the huge stock options valuation question hanging over them). And of course, Keynes liked to speculate in the market himself. Several times he was unsuccessful, other times he made some good money. Sold the last of my CSCO Jan poots today, will probably dump the rest of my Jan poots tomorrow. Looking for poots in the June - July time frame. pearly.

To: UnBelievable who wrote (55575)	1/8/2001 8:15:19 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 436258

i fully agree with this...exactly the opposite to what popular misconception demands should be done. the faster the downturn, the better the chances for a lasting recovery sooner rather than later. trying to dodge the inevitable is going to make it infinitely worse, and yet that is precisely what is going to happen. no-one has the backbone to inflict the necessary pain imo.

To: UnBelievable who wrote (55575)	1/9/2001 9:36:01 PM
From: chojiro	Respond to of 436258

Hi Thanks for posting that. At the risk of sounding naieve, could someone explain the roll that all the 401K money will/does have in the market? If there si a constant inflow won't this continue to inflate the bubble? The money has to go somewhere, correct? Most likely candidates would be the bigger techs, but again, that would only continue to put high P/Es on an inflated market already. Thanks. BTW, I thought Volcker had retired and greenspan was his "understudy" Do you think that Volcker would really be raising rates back to double digits?