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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Adams who wrote (3123)	10/17/2001 3:19:15 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

I don't care about marginal projects and rates of returns for others, as I don't see the connection to the affordability of Absolute vs Smirnoff or Potters. You shouldn't bother. Trying to make a profit for others is counter productive. You have to pursue your own interest. To the extent you do that, you realize the greatest good for the greatest number. This is the position that is the hardest thing to comprehend for the caring, feeling mind of the current age. You have to learn to not care. That's very difficult in a behavior controlled society. I consider the position that suspending the buybacks will drive longer term rates higher and hurt the economy as a non starter. There you go... But I do see the mucking around with duration as having frictional costs, and the potential for increasing future financing costs of the Govt Debt when it comes time to roll over. Consider. If rollover becomes onerous, then people become concerned about it and subtly make changes in policy that mitigate the threat without really knowing that they have been changed. The change takes place in people's brains where it can't be observed. For example, they adopt the attitude that they will live in poverty to pay down the debt of their indolent parents. Then rollover is no longer a problem so they start partying again. That is, their children do. They were too poor to party. For evidence, see Soviet Union. Based on what you've said, those potential future higher costs would be accompanied by higher demand for money, Never think that higher costs cause higher demand for money. It causes lower demand for money. Well, don't you need more money to support more expensive transactions? But fewer transactions are done at the higher cost. This is the kind of thing you hear in Finance 202. It always is fraught with unwarranted assumptions and hopelessly circular arguments. which I would think portends higher investment (and possibly consumption) or 'better times' from the perspective of the average American, thus might be worth the price. It's well known that inflation is good for stocks... And what should concern us, is that the debt may be rolled over at lower rates in the future, a bleak prospect. You can't be saying that. Haven't you heard about the refi market? Everyone rushes to do it. That doesn't seem bleak. Maybe you mean a situation like that of Japan where things are bleak, very bleak, but that's only true because they seek to be an exporting nation when they have outgrown that limitation. It isn't so bleak there when you live there. It's only so in the eyes of commentators who need to see others do what won't work for them. So my grubby little tax payer perspective should be hoping for higher debt financing costs going forward, not worrying about what his personal bill for prosperity will be. I don't see it. Interest rates rise for one reason: inflation. Inflation is the only problem that yet exists in the economic world. Everything else is inconsequential. Inflation is far worse than terrorism because it is legal terrorism.