To: LPS5 who wrote (13373 ) 7/11/2001 1:57:35 AM From: Raymond Duray Read Replies (1) | Respond to LP, A lot of very bright people don't conclude that it was the culprit in 1987 Quite simply, lots of panicked sellers at all levels, and technological inadequacy, contributed to the precipitous declines on those days As early as 1988, the Brady Commission reported that portfolio insurance related stock- and futures contract sales each totaled no more than 20% of the respective total volumes traded on those two days. ROFL. What then does a rapidly expanding market indicate? rigged at the time. Are you aware that lame duck isn't originally a political term relating to an office holder who's term is ending? It was actually coined in 1720, at the end of Exchange Alley, where the patzers who'd just lost their last hope in the South Seas Bubble would walk out of the alley with their worthless bonds in a most dejected air, as if they had their singed tail feathers between their legs. Let alone the small fact that the Fed's job isn't to supervise the U.S. equity markets. Believe it or not, Ray love to sell you. There is a polite lie that is told that the markets are free, and the FRB ought not to interfere with equity players. Poppycock. You do recall the absolute devastation that excess margin created in '29 thru '32 don't you? Given their head, arrogant traders will always opt for as much risk as possible, without the least regard for the consequences. Since we've already learned these lessons, isn't it wise to curb the excesses that lead to real problems for the real economy before they get out of hand? No, obviously I'm out of touch, I'm not a "free marketer". I'm someone who understands the history of business and knows it runs to excess. In 1810, the canal companies, in 1873, the railroads, in 1907, the industrial conglomerates, in 1929, radio and all that jazz, in 2000, the internet. But once the manias run their course, isn't it prudent to try to control the violence and the volitility of Mr. Market's mood swings?
