To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19064 ) 2/11/2001 7:38:12 PM From: hueyone Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 60323 Art, It is clear to anyone who listened to the fourth quarter CCs for their tech investments that the slowdown began in earnest in year 2000 under President Clinton. Even so, I do not regard the slowdown as a Clinton, Bush, democratic or republican slowdown. It is simply a downturn in the business cycle that is bound to happen at some point no matter who is in the oval office and no matter how astute their economic policies are. Regardless, imho, the most influential person with regard to economic expansion or economic contraction is Greenspan. But federal monetary policy is an imperfect art, not a science, and we were lucky the last economic expansion lasted as long as it did---(although it could also be argued that length of the last economic expansion was also a curse because the pain of unwinding the excess liquidity from this long expansion is worse than it would have been if we already had endured some more minor economic slowdowns along the way). Regardless, the notion that the government or federal reserve can permanently engineer the death of business cycles is a fallacious one. Those of us who hung on to investments at bloated prices that required sustained high growth rates to justify the high valuations, fully deserve the pain resulting from this ugly and unceremonious revaluation of equities to more reasonable levels. With regard to Japan, its economy has been in the toilet the entire eight years Clinton has been in office. Concurrently with Japan's tanking economy and Clinton's eight years in office, the Nikkei index dropped 34%. But again, I don't think it is fair to hold either Clinton or Bush accountable for Japan's problems or successes. Finally, my post below was responding to your audacious statement that "There is a growing amount of evidence that the administration is obtaining cooperation from institutional investment firms to stop investing in technology issues as a way of causing a market panic." Rather than offer any evidence for your statement, you have changed the subject. If you want to just let it go there, we will drop it. I am more concerned about analysts' earnings estimates for Sandisk for the next year. The updated, near term earnings outlook for Sandisk seems like a more believable reason for Sandisk's current low valuation than the proposed Republican conspiracy. Best, Huey