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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (245612)	4/5/2002 12:17:59 AM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

rich, I don't know what you meant by "for the most part I agree with you", but it seems to me you at least hedged with the following post. Anyway I must have gleaned my belief that you did from it. I don't really want to argue with you any more tonight. To:rich4eagle who wrote (186842) From: alan w Wednesday, Sep 26, 2001 12:28 AM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 245614 My response is that Clinton had nothing to do with the drop from 5000 to 2700. Just as he had nothing to do with the prosperity of the 90's. It just happened. He was just along for the ride. The meteoric rise of Dell, Lucent, etc..(ie the internet and telcoms) caused an avalanche of new investors. It was a big mo mo play. 10 years worth. PE's meant nothing. My stock club invested in several good companies(at least they plotted that way). But, they stayed in obscurity. I consider Clinton to be the most "fortunate" president in economic history. Have a good one rich. alan w To:alan w who wrote (186847) From: rich4eagle Wednesday, Sep 26, 2001 12:03 PM Respond to of 245614 Alan for the most part I agree with you but I do believe the economic policy of Clinton/Greespan/Rubin which was agreed to early on had a lot to do with allowing the market to rumble