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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (156825)	3/23/2002 10:33:35 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

ild, I like Roach, but this reeks a bit of the buy high, sell low analysis that he dislikes in the United States. Korean stocks are way up, so they are doing everything right. Japan's are down, so they are stuck in the mud. I would bet him a quarter that over the next two years, the Nikkei will outperform the Seoul market. And Japanese small stocks will wayyyy outperform the Korean large stocks, though I still like a lot of Korean little cos.

To: ild who wrote (156825)	3/23/2002 5:49:56 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 436258

I think that the inflation in the US is starting to grow at such a pace that the "hedonic" manipulation will not help. Most important will be the "housing" equivalent factor which is based on some strange "real cost" related to the yield on treasuries. As soon as the yield will rise the CPI reports will start zooming upwards. Wonder what they will do with health care cost which are increasing at a 6% to 10% each year for the last 4 to 5 years. For how long the hedonic gimmickry will help

To: ild who wrote (156825)	3/23/2002 10:06:41 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 436258

Clever and O'Neill in the same paragraph ... maybe I need to see him on TV?? I'm a bit skeptical ... >>Secretary O’Neill -- who I believe is significantly under-rated and under-appreciated -- made an attempt to better define the true meaning of the strong dollar policy. He said that ‘the US does not have a strong dollar policy per se... the dollar is strong because of the strong economic fundamentals of the US.’ Rather than appreciating the intellectual purity and logical consistency of this succinct definition of the strong dollar policy, the market heavily criticised Secretary O'Neill for this clarification: somehow the market is used to ‘constructive ambiguity’ on the dollar policy, and revolted at Secretary O’Neill’s ‘destructive clarity.’ We believe that the market may have missed a critical turn in the evolution of the definition of the strong dollar policy. In my view, what O’Neill’s clarification really implies is that the US, in reality, has a neutral dollar policy, not a policy with an unconditional preference for an ever-strengthening dollar! The strong-dollar policy has always been more of a misnomer than a true currency policy. It should be treated just like a ‘strong Dow policy,’ if the Treasury were to argue that its policy aim is to improve the US fundamentals so that the US companies can be profitable. In a clever way, Secretary O’Neill may have already sown the seed for an ‘exit strategy’ from the strong-dollar stance, by clarifying what the strong dollar policy really means. The bottom line I see here is that waiting for, or even debating over, an explicit change to the strong dollar policy may be rather naïve -- clearly the US cannot afford to risk a collapse in the USD. Instead, the evolving definition of the strong dollar policy is much more important, and may have already taken place under O’Neill! <<