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 : Mu Gamma Lambda -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5846)	9/8/2001 11:14:15 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Respond to of 10077

I agree with that.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5846)	9/8/2001 12:41:14 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10077

I would like to add that although I have been a greenie basher the person I would not bash at this point is Bush. This is not his fault!

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (5846)	9/8/2001 4:50:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10077

rate cuts are ammo which, once expended, don't permit you to reload the gun and fire agai Hey, I like that way of phrasing it! I know Greenie bashing is big around these parts, but I think the real cause of the decline is actually the widespread unintelligent deployment of capital investment resources. Building huge fiber links between cities with no way to get them to end users is but one example. Another is investing in companies because others were, not because there was really a belief that those companies would evolve into fundamentally sound economic enterprises. Zactly. Naturally there is an extreme reluctance on the part of those who actually built the bubble to admit that that is what they did. Greenie may have made the money available to do that And that he did do. You could see money supply take a sharp jump in mid and late 2000, followed by the NAZ.. I suppose in AGs favor it can be argued that, even if he knew there was a fair chance he would be wrong, he had to protect against a freeze-up at Y2K. And yet at the same time he depends on the Invisible Hand of the market to straighten out so many other problems; why not this one?