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.

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

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (140016)	2/28/2002 11:58:02 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 164684

>>The problem was the potential for a bubble, given the warning signs Lindsey noted, not that there was a bubble in place in September 1996. The problem they thought they should "keep an eye on" was that potential for a bubble, not an existing bubble.<< ok, we can at least agree they knew it was an issue at, what, dow 6000 and naz 1500? if they knew the bubble potential was a problem in 1996, why didn't they know it in 2000 with the dow up 66% and the naz up 230%+? why the "we can't know a bubble until after it pops" and "the new economy (created by calculation adjustments not by the economy itself) can support the current market" crap? if the economy was the super tanker greenspan said it was then why could a single ltcm take it all down? why manipulate the markets with new economy talk (a new economy that clearly didn't exist outside of statistical mirage and alan knew this b/c he did it!) while printing money so bubbleheads could use it as fuel to gamble - just as they said would happen 4 years earlier? the dude is rotten. he created a bubble and actvely fomented it. now we pay the price for his lack of leadership and desire to take the easy way out w/ no concern for long term consequences - the same mentality wreckless kids have. jmho, but i'm confident i have the facts to back it up.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (140016)	2/28/2002 1:38:54 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Bob -- the recession was much milder than I expected -- and unemployment might remain in a funk but not at high levels. This could be a "double-dip" recession as some think -- we will have to see -- but unemployment looks like it is not going to soar to new heights.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (140016)	4/17/2002 6:50:04 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

One world ... one big, bloody problem worldnetdaily.com It's not hard to understand why globalism is so persistently seductive to people of genuinely good intent. Long a staple of hack science fiction writers and the producers of Saturday-morning cartoons, the notion of one central and benevolent government for all humanity appears like a light shining in the darkness of a world that is still wracked by warfare, terrorism, famine and disease despite the past century's incredible advances in technology. Of course, it was pointed out several thousand years ago that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. In fact, if humanity's past record is a reasonable guide, globalism may represent the single deadliest threat to mankind in our long, murderous history. The Economist has reported that in the last century, more people died at the hands of their own governments than in all the wars and civil wars combined – 170 million deaths vs. 37 million. However, the implications of this fact for global governance have not often been considered. Supporters of globalism are optimistic that under the aegis of a single government, the world will experience peace, one way or another. But even if we put aside the questionable notion of an enforced peace, which the Balkan conflict demonstrated is merely a matter of putting off today's violence for tomorrow, it must be understood that an end to war is not synonymous with an end to violence and bloodshed. Just as soldiers going into battle for the first time tend to think in terms of what they will do to the enemy instead of what the enemy will do to them, globalists envision one-world governance as an efficient means of imposing their views on others. This is why political activists of nearly every stripe tend to embrace globalist institutions even if they oppose a specific aspect of globalism. Thus the radical environmentalist who protests the World Economic Forum nevertheless supports the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. But there is no guarantee that a one-world government will respect the laws, customs, and institutions of the traditional freedom-loving West. Indeed, the institutions which are most deeply enmeshed in the globalist movement show strong signs that it will instead imitate the autocratic habits of its intellectual predecessors. For example, the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 29, section 3, that: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Jawohl, Reichsfuhrer Annan! Consider also the possibility that a coalition of Arab and African states might take control of the global government in the same way they've been able to exert undue influence over the U.N. General Assembly. Then everyone could enjoy the religious freedom enjoyed by Jews and Christians living in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan . Unfortunately, that's far from the worst possibility. Two of the governments responsible for the worst civilian massacres in history, Russia and China, boasting 62 million and 37 million murders, respectively, hold permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. And for those who argue that Russia isn't the same government as the Soviet Union, I have only one thing to say: If they're not, then what is Russia doing on the Security Council? Even in medieval times, intelligent people understood that the fact that one king was a wise and benevolent ruler didn't mean the next one wouldn't be a complete psychopath. For those of you without historical reference, I'm talking about a situation like the one depicted in the movie "Gladiator," wherein Emperor Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his son Commodus. The peril of central power is why America's founding fathers decided to ditch the whole concept and did their best to break it up, scattering it as far and as wide throughout the land as possible. Regardless of how global governance is implemented, it is sure to attract every evil, power-seeking individual and organization like pedophiles to a public schoolyard. The intrigues and conspiracies will make Byzantium's internecine power struggles look like a student-council debate by comparison. Every would-be Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Mugabe will be converging on a single institution, and the most ruthless of them will be the winner. The National Socialists had a saying that still sounds ominous now, 50 years later. "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" One world, one government may not sound so scary yet, but it should. Because one thing is certain. Totalitarian government doesn't improve with size.