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: yard_man who wrote (119244)	9/1/2001 6:31:02 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<He certainly did foster a bubble -- both in word and deed.> Can you show me the word please? I haven't seen or heard any, but certainly haven't seen or heard all his words, but those I have are the opposite [the concern about irrational exuberance for example and how to know when that is actual]. He became [overly late in my opinion] aware of the productivity bonus of tech stuff and some would say the acceptance of that is a promotion of a bubble. I disagree. What was the deed? Printing a bunch of dollars and lowering interest rates in the late 1990s when there was NO inflation and deflation was more likely is not bubble-building. There is STILL no inflation [houses notwithstanding and those prices won't continue rising]. People who indulge a wishful-thinking bubble are going to form a crowd and go mad. It happens time after time after time and central bankers don't have a lot of power over it [until the madness has pretty much run its course]. I'm from Noo Zealand. Mq

To: yard_man who wrote (119244)	9/1/2001 8:07:36 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I see no real proof that Greenspan's raising interest rates brought down the market. As I recall, the B2C's and the CLECs were running out of cash in the summer of 2000. Without proof that they could become profitable, they were finding it difficult to raise funds through more offerings. The B2Cs did a last trick of giving out coupons for free merchandise, heavily discounted merchandise, or free shipping in order to pump out revenue growth figures and to boost stock prices for the insiders. These were supported by heavy advertising in the fall of 99. As I recall, the consumer spending started slowing down in the spring of 2000 when the gas prices jumped to $ 2.25 and $ 2.50. There were never any noticeable slowdowns in housing back then as well. It seems to me that the many new era companies were going out of business, and started to cut back to slow their burn rate by early 2000. This process gradually spread to more and more nut and comm-nut companies, and then to other infra companies.

To: yard_man who wrote (119244)	9/1/2001 9:02:50 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

tippet the raise in oil prices which were transferred into higher energy prices did more damage than AG. Their effect has a delay as any other financial event. I wrote about that on SI around April / May 2000 I think. Compare your interest expenses to energy expenses and you will see what I mean. Then take the multiplier effect into cost of products and transportation. Keep in mind that price per BTU tripled from winter or 1998/9 to Summer 2000. (Gas prices popped from around $2.5 to over $7 and oil from around $11 to $32). Interest rates had relative little impact but regardless were raised to late. Liquidity was the actual problem and the FED failed to recognize that the Y2K issue was a plot by the High Tech community to sell more services and hardware. There is much blame on AG and his fellow FED members for failing to understand the effects of growing money velocity, "just in time inventory", the bubble including his/their failure to recognize or his/their unwillingness to call the bubble a bubble and his/their submission to WS thieves and swindlers and succumb to political pressure. BWDIK Haim