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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 100cfm who wrote (44629)	7/18/2001 8:03:37 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

You make my point in which is that AG FORCED if i can rephrase what John said, AG was the proximate cause for an inevitable event. people who got burned want to point the finger at somebody, and AG is their goat. There is no proof that the party couldn't go on LOL! there is also no proof the moon isn't made of cheese, so let's get out the fondue sticks.

To: 100cfm who wrote (44629)	7/18/2001 8:38:04 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 54805

100, Rather then letting the market and the economy ease itself in a more gradual natural fashion. I realize that it's popular to bash Greenspan, but I have a different view about that. 5% growth in the economy is so rare, especially accompanied by the low unemployment, that it's difficult for me to believe that there would have been a gradual change in the economy or the stock market when the growth slowed. I think the economy would have slowed quickly and that the stock market would have reacted quickly. We'll never know if everything would have fallen as far or as fast as it did, but it is interesting to me that I've seen the opinion repeated in the thread and among business leaders that the U. S. is in a recession even though -- so far -- that's not been demonstrated by the usual definition of a recession. When you mention that the stocks were not in a bubble but instead were over valued, do you remember that in March 2000 you (along with everyone from the thread who met in San Diego) disagreed with me that the stocks we were following were overvalued? I'm not trying to beat you up for that, even if it appears that way. :) Instead, I'm using it as an example of my point that all too often there is a tendency for us to believe what we want to believe. Right now we want to believe that were it not for Greenspan, we wouldn't have had the worst stock market decline in the history of the NAZ. Possibly we should have expected that the largest decline would follow the largest rise or that a rare, 5% growth in the economy would be followed by a hugely dramatic decrease in the growth. If I'm completely out to lunch about this, the least we should learn is that the next time there is 5% growth in the economy accompanied by a huge increase in the market caps of companies and the lowest unemployment in decades, it's likely that an inflation-fighting Fed will raise rates and "cause" the same situation all over again. If the magnitude of all those events ever recurs again, and if an investor believes the Fed is going to act the same again with the same consequences, that investor would be nearly crazy to leave his/her assets in the stock market. --Mike Buckley