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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/27/2001 9:00:49 PM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 152472

Frank,can John Q Public sue the head of the Fed for incompetence,causing undue harm to the investing millions?.Let's protest outside the Fed's office in Wash!

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/27/2001 9:01:50 PM
From: Keith Feral	Respond to of 152472

It's easy to take fire at Greenspan now that the economy has fallen prey to his cynical attack of the wealth effect. They are currently trying to restore liquidity to the system to end the credit crunch that developed last year. A couple thoughts on the road to recovery. 1) There is a shift in cold war tax policy to reduce the burden of big government. Smaller rates of growth for government spending are critical to this endeavor. The burden of taxation is being eased to shift the economic benefits back to the economic system. Governments are competing to reduce personal and corporate tax rates to compete for investment. For example, Canada is hoping to reduce their corporate tax rate to compete better with the US to bring new jobs and capital to their country. 2) Lower tax rates are going to be very deflationary. The threat of stagflation is not going to be a serious factor if the benefits of lower taxation provide greater productivity & competition. 3) Labor reductions are allieviating the pressure on a tight labor market. This can no longer be perceived as a threat - not that the government stats were really that meaningful. 4) There is way to large a gap between GDP growth and short term interest rates. There is no justification for 5.50% FED funds rates with the economy growing at or near zero. The rule of thumb calls for a 300 basis point premium between economic growth and short term rates. The FED is going to cut by 50 basis points again. I think we can see short term rates stabilize to 3% as liquidity is restored and a long term balance is made. 5) The redeuction in government spending should benefit the private sector by shifting the uses of economic resources to more efficient parts of the economy. Also, it should keep economic more tame on a longer term basis to keep interest rates coming down. Before government spending took on massive proportions in the 70's, the Yield Book did not even account for long term interest rates above 6%. 6) The lack of economic leadership in the past 10 years away from FED policy is about to be challenged. The government is now faced with the obligation to address real economic policy apart from bogus social issues. Tax reform, govermenment spending, and world trade are the most important issues facing the government today - not to mention energy policy.

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/27/2001 10:04:39 PM
From: Mike M2	Respond to of 152472

Frank, I agree Greenspan should go see gold-eagle.com mike

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/27/2001 10:57:05 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

For the Fed :http://www.PetitionOnline.com/geeniego/petition.html

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/27/2001 11:02:29 PM
From: golfinvestor	Respond to of 152472

OT <It has been log overdue that the Federal Reserve Chairman be asked to resign.> Amazing. I didn't hear anybody screaming "raise the interest rates" when the Nasdaq was at nose bleed levels over 5000. The Fed has cut 100 basis points in 2001, now you want Greenspan's head because he didn't cut as much as you thought he should cut. Are you an expect on economic policy? The economic data is not all pointing to lower interest rates at all costs. The February PPI, CPI and the LEI were all higher than anybody expected. The Fed will lower interest rates when they think it is best for the whole country, not just for some "sore losers" that have lost money in the stock market. I think the Fed (Especially Allen Greenspan) have done a great over the last decade. Take a deep breath, relax and remember the stock market is meant for risk capital and not grocery money. I feel better now!

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/27/2001 11:08:16 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 152472

<The crushing of the financial markets has been mainly caused by the arrogance and hostility of the Federal Reserve board members.The hiking of interest rates repeatedly was totally without merit. > LOL... you're right about the Fed chairman being asked to resign but that should have happened back in '98 when he re-filled the punch bowl with electric Kool Aid!!! Now the inevitable happens and everyones moved on to much harder stuff and guys like you are begging Greenspan to pass out needles! DAK

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	2/28/2001 11:30:47 AM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

The real definition of inflation for Greenspan - excess investment demand over savings. None of the issues about labor markets, CPI inflation, energy prices motivated the real tightening of interest rates last year. It's just the wealth effect, sir. Thankfully, AG is not going to be the only economic leader in town anymore. The overemphasis on monetary policy to stabilize prices has brun it's gambit. Price stabilization is a fact of life regardless of whatever moronic comments GReenspan makes about the "rapid change" of technology. Having witnessed the dployment of CDMA for 2G and awaiting the introduction of CDMAfor 3G, I know how long it takes for new technologies to become commercial. It is now time to reduce the size of government spending and reallocated the excess part of the budget to the taxpayers. We have the left and right goal posts already set - $900 billion for the left and $1.6 trillion for the right. I would be happy with a perfect shot down the middle.

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	3/2/2001 6:51:57 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Kudlow: Why Delay an Ease? By Lawrence Kudlow Contributing Editor Mar 1, 2001 04:15 PM In the political game of expectations this past week, George Bush's quasi State of the Union message on tax and budget policy passed with flying colors. But Alan Greenspan flunked in his monetary report to Congress. President Bush steadfastly and artfully defended his pro-growth tax-rate relief plan, along with a flexible freeze budget and a move to ease energy drilling and production rules in order to generate more power for the high-tech wired economy. In sum, Bush put forward a clear economic growth strategy to reverse the Clinton economic decline he has inherited. Mr. Greenspan, however, had no such message. After considerable speculation that the Fed chairman would significantly revise the economic report he delivered two weeks ago to the Senate, and great market hopes of a 50 basis-point inter-meeting rate cut, the so-called maestro vetoed the early rate cut idea and altered his testimony only slightly, but pessimistically. In response, stock markets fell again. And again. The bear market Nasdaq technology index, already down more than 50 percent from its peak, is now joined by the S&P 500, which has recently moved into the official bear territory of a 20 percent decline. The stock market message is a recessionary one. And Mr. Greenspan said very little to rebut this outcome. He no longer disputes that the sizable drop in consumer confidence is consistent with past recessions. He also believes that "excesses built up in 1999 and early 2000" are still causing a "retrenchment" in the economy. Reading between the lines, Greenspanspeak is essentially saying that a recession is upon us, and there's really not much the Fed can do about it. Yes, the central bank will cut interest rates more in the months ahead. But they prefer to do so at regularly scheduled FOMC meetings, rather than in between meetings. The next Fed policy get-together is March 20, with future meetings scheduled for May 15 and June 27. It is not unreasonable to anticipate 50- basis point cuts in the fed funds policy rate at each of these meetings. That would bring the key rate to 4 percent by mid-year. However, there is a cost to delaying these rate cuts. Think of it this way. If you know there's a deep discount car sale starting one week from now, will you shop for a new auto this coming week? Or will you wait to capture the price-cut benefits of the official sale? The same holds true for the economy. Since everyone in our well-informed web site economy knows that future fed rate cuts are in the cards, they are likely to hold back on spending and investing actions until the Fed actually pulls the trigger. Hence delayed interest rate cuts will actually have the unwanted effect of delaying economic recovery. The Fed may believe it is acting prudently in an orderly manner by holding back until its formal policy meetings occur, but the unintended consequence of this thinking will cause a lengthier downturn in the short run. The exact same principle holds for tax policy. That is why President Bush has wisely asked Congress for a retroactive tax-rate cut and prompt legislative action to trigger it. Delaying or phasing in tax cuts will slow the economy in the short run. This is particularly the case for upper end earners, who supply much of the risk capital for new business investment. Why declare a transaction when the top rate is 40 percent, when you know in a year or two (or six) it might be 33 percent? Risk capital will be withheld until investors can capture the lowest marginal tax-rate. But it's the provision of risk capital that truly drives the animal spirits of growth. Back to Mr. Greenspan. He continues to avoid any responsibility for the economic downturn. Instead, he puts the finger on mistake-prone business people who accumulated too many inventories, or crazed technology entrepreneurs who committed too much capital, or overly exuberant stock market investors, or nasty OPEC countries who jacked up oil prices. Everyone's to blame but the Fed. But how about the inverted Treasury yield curve most of last year, which was signaling excess Fed tightening and warning of a future recession? How about the wild go-and-stop money supply policy, where 12-month monetary base growth swung from 6.6 percent in December 1998 to 16 percent in December 1999, and then collapsed to negative 2.5 percent by December 2000. Even today, the central bank refuses to acknowledge that virtually every commodity price on the planet is deflating. Or that the short end of the Treasury curve is still inverted, where three-month Treasury bills yield more than two- and five-year Treasury notes. These commodity and financial price indicators suggest that liquidity preferences in the economy are very high (retail and institutional money funds are growing like topsy), but the Fed's provision of liquidity is still in short supply. Economic growth is not likely to resume until liquidity is adequate and the Treasury curve is upward sloping from the short end all the way out to the longest dated maturities. Commodity prices and interest rates will have to stabilize before confidence returns. Easier money and lower tax-rates is an appropriate monetary-fiscal policy mix to stimulate recovery. And help is on the way. But it now looks like delaying tactics from the Fed will postpone a likely stock market and economic rebound for several more months.

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (94751)	3/8/2001 10:48:34 AM
From: deth8	Respond to of 152472

What??? Get rid of the guy who has done so well since the Reagan era? Sheesh does anyone believe in long term economics anymore? Maybe only when they get pummelled it is a phase to keep themselves sane but they really don't believe it. It seems he did overdo it now, however I shall never look forward to 13-19% inflation. I would like my gains to actually be worth something if I do get them. For now it is back to work to keep the baseline economic turbine that pays the bills running.