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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: reaper who wrote (52359)	9/3/2002 2:28:59 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

looking at the price of my gold miners today -- I think AG has already accomplished his mission. No improvement necessary <ng>

To: reaper who wrote (52359)	9/3/2002 2:33:22 PM
From: Softechie	Respond to of 209892

POINT OF VIEW: Bubble-Stopping Not Right Job For Fed 03 Sep 13:11 By Neal Lipschutz A Dow Jones Newswires Column NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--As debate swirls about whether the Federal Reserve can tame a stock market bubble before it over-inflates and bursts, a larger question looms: Do we want a government body to wield such power over market decisions? Put another way, the question becomes: shouldn't markets reflect the synthesis of thousands of daily decisions by investors, even if that investor consensus is somehow "wrong"? Sure, from the post-burst vantage point now so unhappily inhabited by U.S. equity investors (who are experiencing another downdraft Tuesday), a bubble-stopping guardian angel seems awfully attractive. If only the Federal Reserve in the late 1990s had used jawboning and monetary policy to gently let the air out of the asset bubble, this thinking goes, investors would have suffered only a mild letdown rather than the stunning declines experienced most of all by technology share owners. But attractive as it now seems, over the long haul it is dangerous to ask the Fed or any other government body to save investors from themselves. Ultimately, if asked or required to do so, policy makers will make rescue attempts too frequently, with negative results for open markets and economic activity. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan doesn't believe it can successfully be done, and his public pronouncement to that effect is what started this latest debate on asset bubble control. Greenspan on Aug. 30 told the annual gathering of central bankers and academic monetary specialists in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, that "it was far from obvious that bubbles, even if identified early, could be pre-empted short of the central bank inducing a substantial contraction in economic activity - the very outcome we would be seeking to avoid." He added: "The notion that a well-timed incremental tightening could have been calibrated to prevent the late 1990s bubble is almost surely an illusion." Greenspan's talk has been criticized by some who found him a tad defensive. Some market commentators think that if the Fed in the late 1990s had raised rates sooner, we would never have gotten above 5,000 on the Nasdaq Composite Index, only to fall so far back to solid ground. But to insist on the Fed intervening in such a way is to skew the central bank's priorities, which should always put inflation-fighting first. It also invites damaging regular intervention into the markets (bubbles will most certainly be over-diagnosed) and introduces uncertainty into the real economy. The Fed under Greenspan has established a credible relationship for monetary policy and financial market activity. When events in markets are having a significant influence on the broader economy either by experiencing systemic problems or by strongly influencing consumer spending and confidence, Fed policy action is appropriate. But wanting the Fed to spot and stop bubbles or otherwise fine-tune market actions is both unlikely to be successful and unhealthy for a market system that should trust the consensus of honestly arrived at decisions made by investors seeking their own self interest. Given human nature, that means periods of too much optimism and too much pessimism. But expecting other fallible human beings to somehow fix this issue is simply asking for more trouble and needless restraint on economic potential. Neal Lipschutz is senior editor, Americas, for Dow Jones Newswires. -By Neal Lipschutz, Dow Jones Newswires, 201 938 5152 neal.lipschutz@dowjones.com (END) DOW JONES NEWS 09-03-02 01:11 PM

To: reaper who wrote (52359)	9/3/2002 2:36:15 PM
From: Softechie	Respond to of 209892

AG denied that he didn't know there was a bubble! What a facking liar! It was he who said "Irrational Exuberance" about the market back in late mid 90's. He and his croonies knew it but ignored and stoked up the fire with more cuts...incredible!