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: Oblomov who wrote (8040)	8/31/2001 1:39:23 PM
From: the_wheel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Is this like "Greenspeak"? See: biz.yahoo.com ``There can be little doubt that sizable swings in the market values of business and household assets have created important challenges for policy-makers,'' Greenspan said in a speech Translation : "We're screwed" ``To answer these questions, we need far more information than we currently possess about the nature and the sources of capital gains and the interaction of these gains with credit markets and consumer behavior,'' he said. means "I dont know what to do" and this <<``In such circumstances, differences in the propensities to consume out of the capital gains and losses on different types of assets could have significant implications for aggregate demand,'' he said. He said the Fed is in the process of studying the matter to try and develop more detailed information. In general, for every $1 increase in consumers' wealth, consumer spending is raised by three to five cents, he said. But when a home is sold, with the resulting cash from the capital gains, consumers tend to spend more -- 10 cents to 15 cents of that dollar.>> must mean "For every dollar of bubble stock gains J6P got 3-5c, for every dollar of bubble house gains expect to get 10-15c, ie sell your house now before it pops too!" or am I reading him wrong here What complex concepts do these specialized words represent that the ignorant wheel is unable to fathom?

To: Oblomov who wrote (8040)	8/31/2001 5:18:10 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

I've never understood why people resent lawyers using legalese, but don't resent mathematicians using mathese, doctors using medicalese, philosophers using philosopherese, theologians using religionese, economists using economistese, and so forth. For example, to this day, I don't really understand what philosophers mean when they say "existentialism." I mean, what does "existence is prior to essence" mean? There's a lot I don't understand about philosophy. I've only finished 5 chapters of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" and don't even try to understand Foucault. I really don't get what theologians mean by "dispensationalism," for one thing, and there are many other things that theologians talk about that require a dictionary. I don't understand what mathematicians mean when they say "Fourier transform," and a lot of other things. I can never remember the difference between "metabolic acidosis" and "respiratory acidosis" without looking it up. I've got some nice fat medical textbooks and medical dictionaries, and they are full, full, full of words that take many days, even weeks, of research to understand. Similarly, with legalese - I doubt very much that I could explain all the parameters and permutations of "estoppel" to you without taking days.I've got a banker's box full of law review articles and cases about estoppel. Entire books have been written about it. So it may be gibberish to you, but it's a very useful word to me. It took my first year torts professor weeks to really explain "proximate cause," and he didn't even try to the end of the semester. In fact, it wasn't until a couple of years later, when I was working on a law review casenote that I finally realized that what is or is not a "proximate cause" can be a policy decision. Likewise, it took my first year criminal procedure professor several days to really explain the interaction between "mens rea," "actus reus," and "malum in se." I don't accuse anyone of using jargon when they argue about the various features of CDMA vs. TDMA - they know what they are talking about, and I don't. I suppose I could accuse them of using jargon to differentiate themselves and signal to each other, but I really think that the words have specific meanings which they get and I don't. I don't feel uncomfortable admitting that there are many, many things about which I am ignorant. I believe that it was Socrates who said that the greatest part of wisdom is admitting what you don't know. So, I feel very wise indeed!-g-