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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (3752)	5/19/2001 12:00:23 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Peter Edmonston of The WSJ does not give the nick names of the participants anymore. Only the city that they live and age, CB. i5ive.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (3752)	5/19/2001 4:26:50 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

not a member of the paranoid camp. I prefer to think I am a realist CB. I didn't desire LTCM to bring banks down. No, what I loathe is a system that allowed LTCM to take on the positions that it did! Does it bother me that the master-minds (I am winking when I say that word) got huge bonuses when they were personally bailed out of the fiasco and can easily go set up shop elsewhere? F'n A!! It's wrong -- this isn't prudent loans made with some expected risk -- (and neither have been a lot of the crap funded during this bubble -- take AMZN for example) the banking system and credit creation is completely out of control at this juncture. Greenspan has fought any kind of regulation of the derivatives markets -- he has not allowed lesser concerns to fail -- moral hazard just doesn't even describe it. What I find laughable or even sick in Greenspan's reference to banks having to take on risk, nothing good in a safe bank, is the backdrop against which he made these comments. Goodness sake -- the man has presided over the complete opposite -- folks getting capital without even a friggin' idea, let alone a business plan. If you don't think he has fostered the loosest and most reckless expansion of money and credit -- wait a couple of years and see if you can still say the same thing. You want paranoid? -- I think Greenspan has been deified in the press while he has destroyed our economy for several years to come (very possible, in my book that he has been affected by the other side). I think he is either 1) senile and more than half believes he is smarter than everyone else or 2) he is a fool or 3) he is a pawn in some larger evil game. He has done much worse, than simply giving folks the idea that they will always be bailed out if they make a bad decision. He is a real destroyer of wealth -- not numbers in an account -- but by frustrating real market signals, he has misdirected and helped misdirect resources world-wide to such an extent that millions of people will suffer for years to come ... am I looking forward to that, so I can be proved right? No, I just view it as inevitable. Any honest monetary system has to have some discipline beyond the control of the bankers -- they almost always submit or resort to the kind of destruction engaged in by AG. Whether intentional or not he has either participated with or been used by forces bent on economic destruction ... As I told you before, I don't expect a 1930's style depression, but I really expect it is going to be much worse than anything that has happened in my lifetime. Abolish the fed -- they are worse than crooks. Let the markets set interest rates. We don't need anyone to manage interest rates or the money supply. All they do is screw those who hold their notes <ng>

To: Ilaine who wrote (3752)	5/19/2001 5:13:51 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 74559

I think Noland is right-on with some of the comments this time around ... I believe his take is generally an accurate assessment of what has gone on. So I ask myself why? How do you see things differently? If you don't dispute -- then to what do you ascribe AG's behavior -- simple incompetence? prudentbear.com >>Indeed, this is a financial system, and leveraged speculating community especially, that blossomed directly from the Fed’s early 1990s accommodation and hasn’t looked back since. The resulting enormous speculative and banking profits afforded the financial players in the early 1990s, however, looked like a pittance compared to the windfall following the Fed’s 1998’s "reliquefication." Not only is the Fed loath to control this monster that it has been so instrumental in nurturing, it has now reached the point where the Fed is granting additional rewards for previous reckless excess. This has gone much beyond an issue of moral hazard. This is outright negligence. It is now simply a sad case of waiting to see when, where and how big and destabilizing the next bust; unrelenting monetary excess assures it. <<