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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jjetstream who wrote (47928)	2/23/2001 1:48:04 PM
From: velociraptor_	Respond to of 57584

I don't entirely blame Greenspan on the situation though. I think he could have done a few things different that would have made this outcome less traumatic, but public greed in chasing stocks and throwing everything they had including borrowed money to ridiculous valuations had a lot to do with it. Consider it all a rubber band effect. markets, nationally, and globally, all have a steady equilibrium point that is rising through history any deviation from that trend will snap it back sooner or later. The further the deviation, the harder the snapback, and the greater the chance of an overshoot on the snapback. The Nasdaq should never have made it past 5000 in the first place...nor 4000...nor 3000...nor 2000. Not yet anyway.