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 : Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FR1 who wrote (26477)	3/8/2001 1:13:34 PM
From: brian z	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27307

Well said about FED. But as investors, we need to watch FED as closely as we can because what FED should do is out of our control. Like they say, don't fight against FED. History has shown that FED added instability and uncertainty in economy. There is little doubt to most economists and others that FED was wrong to raise interest rate in 1999 and 2000. The problem we are facing now is that FED don't agree about that. Greenspan just said last week before congress that the FED has done a good job. Here is what I posted on SI last October: Greenspan and the Fed could kill American economic growth, productivity increase, technology revolution and new economy in the name of "fighting against inflation" while no inflation exists. One of Clinton's biggest mistake is re-appointing Greenspan as a Fed chairman. It costs Americans (both individuals and companies) big money. And now, it seems very possible that it could cost Clinton's party a presidency. Gore could be in much better position if the stock market not being down like this and the economy not showing slowed down.

To: FR1 who wrote (26477)	3/8/2001 1:23:45 PM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

I totally disagree with your categorization. This is not a question of "free economy" vs. "managed economy". I don't think the FED or the IMF should have been as aggressive in helping out the Asian bubble economies anymore than I think that they should help or hurt the tech sectors. However, their job is to provide stability to capital markets and ensure the trust of investors and the general public in our monetary system. I think they should do as little as possible. That means watching the inflation rate, including the hyper inflation and "irrational exuberance" of certain stock sectors that lead to false trust and leveraging of paper wealth. If there are few signs of overall inflation then interest rates should come down. I think interest rates will come down. I think the Internet is a tremendous vehicle for increasing competition and putting more power into individual consumer's hands. Eventually prices will trend downward, perhaps precipitously. But I don't think that the FED should lower rates just to please upset tech investors. The FED might not get that but neither do tulip bulb investors. I think the government’s role should be minimal. Heck, I'd like to see the government whither away wherever possible. They have little purpose in pumping up a faltering business paradigm no more than they do pumping up failed foreign economies except when absolutely needed to prevent economic chaos. Yahoo!'s problem isn't FED interest rates. The problem is that Internet users don't pay attention to ads and corporations trim back discretionary expenses when the economy tightens. Lower interest rates can help smooth out economic swings but it is not the cause of failed expectations of individual stocks.

To: FR1 who wrote (26477)	3/8/2001 5:41:22 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

When you decide to raise interest rates real high and hold them there until you "crush the speculation" you also mess up the entire economy. I remember a few commentators saying this. Interest rate hikes are a blunt instrument and they can snuff out the economy, resulting in some guy working in a Montgomery Ward who has never invested (and probably has no spare cash to set aside for investing) losing his source of livelihood. The host of "MoneyTalk", Bob Brinker, has long argued in favor of increasing the margin requirements. The small investor has no reason to be borrowing money and playing in the stock market. Though there are other ways to borrow money (credit card, home equity loan etc.) still it would have helped if margin requirements had been raised. Why Greenspan felt that margin is something that the little guy can't do without, is a mystery.