SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: H James Morris who wrote (131479)9/19/2001 1:47:28 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
Looking on the bright side quote.yahoo.com^IXIC&d=c&k=c2&p=m50,m200 -- ok, I lied. There is no bright side. But my instinct is we should start bottoming out in the 1000 to 1200 range on the Naz -- and the sooner the better for the economy, for Americans and for the rest of the world. Lets get it over with. The patriotic thing to do is to leave the market, sell as much as you can, and let it come down to where gravity dictates. There are no earnings and there are none on the horizon. We were slipping into recession and now we are plunging -- so be it, lets plunge and get this behind us. With the Naz at 1000 we can trade stock tips and make money. With the Naz at 1500 we can exchange blather, share our feelings of denial and lose more money. Truth, honesty and an ability to embrace reality and make it our own, and then to start all over again a rebuild our house after the fire -- that is what makes this such an extraordinary country. We spent the years 1982 to 1996 building something extraordinary -- the finest economy in the world. From 1996 on we were hijacked by idiots and let ourselves get talked into building a house of cards based on nothing. Now lets finish burning the house of cards to the ground and clear the site to build a stronger one. To do that we must return to the stock prices of 1195-96 and start all over again. Let do it right this time.



To: H James Morris who wrote (131479)9/19/2001 5:22:40 PM
From: Mark Fowler  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Thanks but No thanks.