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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: que seria who wrote (4630)11/10/2001 1:53:27 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 99280
 
I don't disagree with the gentleman accurate factual description of what is occurring now. I may disagree with his "high ground" position that this is "bad". I agree we will have to pay the piper and have stated that many times. However, the alternative to attempting a 'soft landing' (which is already going to be hard landing due to 9/11), is not acceptable to me. If the feds and congress do not engage now in a stimulative process, we could see a very severe recession, bordering on depression, and furthermore, some of our trading partners in the less developed world would surely see depressions. Such depressions in the less developed world will, IMTO, bring to severe social unrest, and coming out of such depressions could take 10 years or more. The approach we are taking of leaning against the wind and giving the economy some time to adjust to its inequilibria, would keep ours and the world average GDP more or less constant or even growing a little. The approach advocated by the writer, will bring a fast adjustment alright, very large portions of the world population will be exposed to unnecessary hardship. His approach will also result in concentration of assets into fewer hands, those able to withstand a depression and scoop assets a 10 cents on the dollar, not an outcome which I would advocate.

Zeev

PS, rereading this post, it sure does not sound like if it is coming from a Libertarian, more like a "Liberal", but there are times when sticking too strictly to the discipline of :"He who hates his son, saves his whip", which is really what is advocated by those suggesting that intervensionist policies by the feds counter the need to discipline the "profligate consumer" into "sunbmission. We do that, and we will have not a disciplined consumer, but a chastised one, which will abhor "consumption" for a generation or more bringing the whole goal of trying to bring the world to a higher plateau of economic activity, and thus economic well being to large portions of the human race, down the drain.