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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (34142)	3/20/2001 1:21:18 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

Jim: You make TOO MUCH sense... Here's another interesting post on the FED... Message 15533420 Best Regards, Scott

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (34142)	3/20/2001 1:32:22 PM
From: edamo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

jimmy...unfortunately the federal reserve reform act of 1977, and modified by the humphrey hawkins act of 1978 granted the fed the ability to conduct monetary policy so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates... this in itself is rife with ambiguity....i believe if inflation is kept low, as it has been, then the resultant market interest rates will also be low....not the mandated "moderate" fed policy has caused every recession post vietnam war, as they used erratic money supply to "fine tune"? what was perceived as a current economy that was not long term beneficial....

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (34142)	3/20/2001 9:24:59 PM
From: FR1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

can anyone even prove that with no Fed at all, we wouldve had a lower Y2K peak, a more stable correction following that peak in 2000, and a smoother resumption of growth in 2001 ??? "Proof" is impossible. However you can get some idea of how it would have gone. Let's take the poster child of the internet, AMZN: 1) Before the FED got to raising rates up to 6% or so, AMZN went through its whole cycle: 2) It came out and had a great story. 3) People bought like crazy and it went up 1,200% in a year. 4) People eventually got tired of waiting to see the path to profitability so they sold it off. It went down and leveled off. 5) So the market behaved exactly the way it was suppose to behave - giving lots of capital to a new idea and taking some capital away if the idea does not work. People had plenty of time to get in and out of AMZN. The same thing would have happened to many of the other story stocks in 2000. So 2000 would have seen many of them sell off. However, you probably would have seen the warning signs and had plenty of time to get out. Most important, other stocks would not have been damaged. The IPO market would still be there, the semis would have continued to do well, etc. The terrible thing about what the FED did is that they damaged the entire market. Choking funds off instantly destroyed the IPO market and crushed many large businesses that were not the target. It was like taking a sledge hammer to try and kill a fly - you destroy tons of stuff besides the fly. Anyhow, it is history and nothing we can do. More important, and most amazing, is that nothing will be done. Have you heard any calls for congress to do anything? You never will. We will repeat in a few years.