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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10817)	10/19/2001 3:54:51 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

to start with I'll say that I didn't read all of the post my mike you're referring to, but I'll rant anyway! <People make criticisms about him being vague, mumbling etc. > I've never seen that complaint here... I've seen him critisized here and CFZ for talking both ways, but not for being unclear on any specific point. <Also, he did NOT create the bubble. It was wacko internuts and telecosmic crazies who bid stocks to absurd heights. You can't stop crazy suicidal wacko terrorists[completely] and you can't stop crazy suicidal wacko bubble investors. He specifically pointed out, again, that monetary management CANNOT EVER repeal the business cycle and the way human psychology works. The best it can do is "ameliorate" the effects.> IMO this is 100% incorrect. If you look at the money supply numbers there is little doubt that he is responsible for at least part of the speculation that has gone on. Artificially low interest rates and easy money absolutely has an effect, doing deals is directly proportionate availability of credit. It is obvious from his actions [raising rates due to speculation] that Greenspan thinks he has a roll. <I believe the economic productivity is NOT going to revert to the rate of the quarter century before 1995. I think we will see an acceleration as more and more technologies and more and more people and in more and more countries synergistically feed into a globalized civilized technological economic exponential growth. > 1.) Productivity is defined as output per labour unit. Implications here are clear. 2.) Output has to have a $ sign in front of it. You're assertion is that cheaper telecommunications will cause exponantial growth in the rest of the economy. I would argue that the gains will each be 'one time' in this area... ie. this revolution will NOT cause ever spiraling reduction in work forces for the end user. Lastly, to sum up... IMO the arguments about new economy has only one thing to do with AG's excessive M growth and bubble creation, and that is the productivity numbers which he uses to justify the money growth. This has been detailed in depth by James Grant and other economists: www.grantspub.com This topic, which is the core of the argument against Greenspans [excessive] money creation has not been detailed or addressed by you. <It really does puzzle me that people are so vehement in their criticisms of Uncle Al.> Again, if you look at the money creation numbers it sums it up... if you want to argue the point I think you have to address that. Heinz on this and CFZ threads have questioned George Gilder about his [wild] opinion on productivity created by the telecosm over on his own thread and IMO he was basically ill equiped to even discuss the point. DAK