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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (83141)	3/20/2001 8:52:37 PM
From: timers	Respond to of 436258

you're almost outdoing yourSELF with THAT post! :) ???

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (83141)	3/20/2001 9:03:09 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Using credit card advances and home equity loans to buy stocks isn't quite the same as using call money, because you don't get margin calls when the stock goes down, so you can't get liquidated in a downdraft. That may be merely prolonging the inevitable but it does prevent the sharp intraday house-of-cards type collapse. One reason there is more consumer debt, by the way, is all the programs to help more low income people buy houses. Mortgage debt is included in consumer debt. These are low or no down payment loans so that's one reason home equity levels are declining. The US government is going to have to be in unimaginable trouble to default on the loan guarantees it's giving for these mortgages.

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (83141)	3/20/2001 9:19:59 PM
From: JRI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Heinz, I guess you're saying that the US Dollar is kindof like Cisco's stock... You can print shares ad nauseum for quite a while, and buy a lot of stuff while you're doing it.... But sooner or later, the dilution is going to kill you..

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (83141)	3/20/2001 10:12:52 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 436258

Nice read. DAK

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (83141)	3/20/2001 11:24:57 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

hb - ...it is a mistake to believe elimination of cycles is a worthwhile goal imo, because it simply can't be done. cycles are a natural phenomenon...the ups and the downs of the business cycle are a good thing. you need periodic phases of recession to give the market an opportunity to clear out whatever malinvestments have accumulated during the up phase of the cycle. this is the whole point of the argument seems to me: whether interference is a good thing or not. i say it is the monetary authorities interference which has created the fantastic boom with all its attendant imbalances. I believe that I have seen Austrian School commentators claim that business cycles are entirely the result of intervention, but I agree with you that they are natural, especially sector by sector, but that intervention greatly magnifies the degree of malinvestments by synchronizing them in time and across sectors. I also differ with what appears to be Austrian theory in that I believe malinvestments are only truly recognizable in hindsight by their results. An investment that in isolation is rewarding may collapse when unknowing made in a sea of other competing investments. Regards, Don