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: Ilaine who wrote (106197)	6/3/2001 12:03:40 PM
From: portage	Respond to of 436258

You REALLY won't like this one, then, Cobalt. (no, it's not another Noland bulletin) prudentbear.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (106197)	6/3/2001 12:29:43 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<Tip, I seem to have missed the indoctrination sessions on that one. I did a search and satisfied myself that "credit bubble" is a term Tice came up with, and it's become a mantra with the true believers, but I never was a true believer. > LOL, yet interesting how it's spreading... to Barron's and even I-Bank {Morgan Stanley} economists... ho ho ho, perhaps this is cutting edge stuff. Even a broken clock is correct.....? <true believers get too nasty when I question authority. > Not to burst YOUR credit bubble, but the main stream authorities are just beginning to take note, so you're hardly questioning authority here... DAK

To: Ilaine who wrote (106197)	6/3/2001 9:41:28 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I won't get nasty -- are individuals and corporations not more indebted now than they have been in the last 20 years? Do you not agree that private debt has grown more than 3x for the growth in GDP for the last few years ... If Noland and Tice are spewing BS, then why not just point out the errors? The idea that I have somehow been indoctrinated and don't think for myself -- well, that sounds demeaning. Love to see you point out errors -- I don't think Noland and Tice write error-free analyses and their opinions do guide what they write. Tice has a "bear" fund -- so you have to expect that POV. Certainly, I've found errors in some of the descriptions of an energy crisis in some of the writers -- wrong-headed extrapolation of California's problem to the whole of the US ... I do agree with the nomenclature "bubble" because I believe there are large amounts of debt -- much larger than in previous cycles -- that will be the undoing of our economy (i.e. that will never be paid). What do you see when you see a company that was very close to having the largest cap in the stock market write down 2.8B and taking another charge almost as big? Certainly, even you have to admit that as a percentage of financing, debt vs. equity, is at all-time highs for corporations and that this tilt has developed while corps have bought back their own shares at very inflated prices. Would you not agree that there are many new ways that debts of all type no longer remain with the orginator but are repackaged and sold many times over ... some of this is new to this cycle, is it not? If there are more fundamental errors in Noland's or Tice's comments ... share a few of your observations with us. It's an open forum