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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (90696)	4/5/2001 7:50:36 PM
From: Andrew G.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Easy on Grace there, Skeeter. I'm with you on economic issues but you don't have to take the defensive. Your points stand on their own merit and facts. The reason we see such a frenzy of buying on a day like today is because most people do believe in the 'closed system' that Heinz theorizes. The idea is that the market doesn't give a wit about external factors that in fact weigh heavily on corporate earnings and success. This is a programmed trading/chart driven market. The tickers are just an obstacle course to getting a trader's scalp. Caveat Emptor !

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (90696)	4/5/2001 10:14:01 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Skeeter, just because you found a website that agreed with you about chained dollars doesn't mean you won the argument with me and Grace. We gave up because the casino was open and the chart guys were getting ticked. And I am done with it, anyway. But don't taunt Grace or me - the reference you cited wouldn't be considered authoritative in any academic environment. If you still want to argue, I'll do it on Thomas M's thread but not here. Subject 50984

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (90696)	4/6/2001 12:03:24 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

they always matter. Maybe what you mean to say is that they always matter eventually? Because it is obvious that they didn't matter for quite a few years. Why else would you be saying the same thing for four years and the market only started correcting a year ago? , you may be unaware of what I've been saying for the last 4 years. I'm saying the same things now. EXACTLY. if I'm right now, I was right then - BEFORE the fact. I assumed you were saying the same thing for years. You missed my point, which is that sometimes these factors you cite seem to matter to the market and sometimes they are ignored. For instance, how long were they in evidence before the market corrected? i look for sustainable savings rates. As I stated before, a higher savings rate isn't directly related to stock prices. Proof is in Japan. They have a far higher savings rate and their stock market has been in the toilet for ten years. Americans chose to "save" their money by investing it in the markets. Americans have been far less risk averse than the Japanese have been for the last ten years. Plus, don't tell me you are citing the numbers that the government gives you on the savings rate and discounting the ones on the GDP? If one set is suspect they all are. however, proper investing is not about possibilities. it is about probabilities. the end result has an 100% occurrence. This statement is incoherent. What end result has a 100% occurrence? just b/c you are unable to put things together doesn't mean others can't. What makes you think I can't put things together? Because I question your logic? For all you know I agree with some of the things you say but disagree with your conclusions. At the very least I question your ability to state the case in a clear coherent manner. i look for reasonable credit levels. What is a "reasonable" credit level? i look for reasonable valuations relative to historical levels and it isn't there (there are exceptions, however, i'm speaking in gen'l). What period in history did stocks have reasonable valuations and what were they? i look and see reports of 1k-5k people being laid off daily when i can't recall seeing any for a number of years (i'm sure some were there, but not many). Yes, we have layoffs. Yet the unemployment level is lower than it was during those times when I'm almost certain you would point to as having stock prices within historically reasonable valuations. this from a person who posted 2 or 3 notes about "chained dollars" and you didn't even understand the context I understood the context I was using the term, but you were using it in a completely different context. It took me a while before I realized you misunderstood my context because you don't always write using complete sentences.