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 : Sharck Soup -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jimbobwae who wrote (36395)	10/6/2001 1:51:44 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

>>Commitments by CEO's to spend $ or for venture capitalist to invest were never based decisions on what Alan Greenspan thought or was doing.<< much of internet expenditures were based on the "new economy." the old common sense rules "didn't matter anymore." alan.com faked numbers to create a "productivity miracle" out of nothing. are the ceos culpable? heck yeah. they were stupid sheeple. they didn't worry about being wrong, they worried about being different than their peers. >>Certain institutions promote the synergy of these emotions and too many that participate in business and the markets indulge in them at an institutional level.<< alan.com's institution was one of them. he sold a "productivity miracle" that didn't exist to appeal to greed's imagination. "hey, i actually get something for nothing!" econ 101 - tanstaafl. >>You apparently were not around during the S&L crisis in the '80's. Banks lent $ at 10:1 ratios with little real collateral required. I know, I was interviewed by the FBI to provide evidence for some of the few of the schmucks that got locked up indulging in illegal behavior.<< never said or implied they didn't. >>I can't even comment on the rest of this post because it reeks of the "blame others" syndrome that has gripped so many losers in the cyber-investing environnment.<< i understand this valid point. however, there are two separate issues. everyone is responsible for their own behavior and folks that played need to blame themselves for having paid. "the buck stops here." however, that fact doesn't leave greenspin blameless for 1. manipulating productivity numbers to double them with no corresponding change in the economy, 2. making easy credit too easy and 3. exploding the money supply often at double digit rates. the bottom line is the person who hires another to kill somebody is guilty, too. even though he/she didn't actually pull the trigger. it doesn't make the actual shooter any less culpable, though. think about it. >>Its tiring to read so many posts that blame the state of the economy on the actions or decisions of others like Alan Greenspan. What about John Chambers, Scott MdNealey, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, and all of the thousands of uber-optimists and their gang of analysts? Heck this certainly includes simple traders like myself whom have nothing to blame but our own decisions to read the present and anticipate the future.<< agreed. all of their arguments are flawed, imho. i stayed away from the bubble as it expanded and railed against its stupidity b/c i know that bubbles ALWAYS pop. the morons listed above argue that the bubble state was normal and alan screwed it up. vested financial self interest has scrambled their brains. so, they are right alan.com screwed up. however, they are wrong why. alan screwed up by playing a large (not the only) role in creating the bubble. once the bubble was created, the pop was a FACT waiting to happen. >>The question is not what caused the bubble to crash but what caused the bubble to inflate in the first place.<< absolutely. i'm with ya here. >>Alan Greenspan warned in 1998. "We" did not want to listen because "We" were too busy creating a "new economy" that did not respond to the historical rules that reflect true value.<< talk is cheap. have you seen a shell game? talk is used to get your eyes off what is really going on. let's look at what alan.com did. 1. he kept talking about a new economy that didn't exist. hmmmm. he knew why the productivity numbers went ballastic... he changed the way they were measured. did you hear him mention that? no way! 2. post 1998, alan rarely, if ever, talked about irrational exhuberance. instead, alan.com repeatedly said that we couldn't know we were in a bubble - even at the height of the bubble! that was inbetween his new economy statements... hmmmmm.... 3. alan.com repeatedly goosed the money supply. where has that money been going for 4 to 5 years? all in the market. it was like an equation. every time he goosed the money supply, stocks rocketed. 4. verbally he was saying how great and productive the economy was and how it could grow like this forever but when trouble appeared, he freaked out and did what any old economy believer would do... after all, nothing was really new after all. millions of folks are all responsible. but if i had to crown a king - the single person with the most responsibility - alan greenspan is it, far and away. manipulating numbers is a sham. why create a sham and then actively promote a new economy that didn't exist (check my notes as the bubble expanded - i KNEW this was a sham in the beginning and was very vocal about it)? why goose money supply at double digit rates if productivity was stellar (i know, productivity wasn't really that much better!) and inflation was so low (excluding asset inflation that rose at a torrid and unsustainable rate, but we'll ignore that!)?