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: mishedlo who wrote (63749)	1/31/2001 5:41:56 PM
From: chic_hearne	Respond to of 436258

And you do not seen Greenspan as to blame? Not exactly. I just don't put the blame on 1999/2000. I think it started more like in 1995, or around that time. Once he had created the bubble, it was going to end badly without question. If it was going to end anyway, somehow, I don't see what he did in 1999/2000 as much of an issue. His real crime was allowing this massive bubble to ever inflate, which started much earlier than the recent rate hikes. The jokers on CNBS were attributing everything to his recent rate hikes, which I completely disagree with.

To: mishedlo who wrote (63749)	1/31/2001 6:33:45 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

From a link posted earlier today; A crucial lesson of these recurrent financial disturbances is that liquidity should not be withdrawn – at the domestic or international level – in times of crisis. Indeed, all Roundtable participants concurred that it is essential to infuse abundant liquidity into the system. cfr.org Also from that same report, something I find doesn't sit quite right. Far more people have invested in the system than in the past, either through mutual funds or directly in the market, and many of these people are doing it with money they cannot afford to lose because they will need it for their retirement. Wait a minute- if capital is not growing, then it is shrinking, by one postulate. Does this mean to say that only capital that can be 'lost' should be invested? It would seem such a message would ensure poverty of the masses.