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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7305)	9/24/2002 2:58:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

OLDTRADER on The Mutual Fund Scam... Message 18029097

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7305)	9/24/2002 3:18:20 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 89467

I am shocked, shocked about the mutual fund fees. Why do you think the want privatization, uh, I mean Personal accounts! You already have a personal account at Social Security. They know exactly how to get your fica and credit it to your account. Exactly how much you got and are elligible to get. All we need is some investment choices. Gold? THen the gov't can transfer your investment factor to your account. Make the accounts private and turn them over to the usual suspects, Bankers, Brokers, Insurance Men, Data base Managers attorneys and you'll work 20 years before you have a balance. Deregulation. A license to Steal. Maybe I'm on a rant... Rascal@watchthoserascals.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (7305)	9/24/2002 3:20:22 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

No magic wand can help Fed find economic solution By AMANDA LANG The Globe And Mail Monday, September 23, 2002 The bright minds at the U.S. Federal Reserve Board meet tomorrow, but there may not be much the central bank can say, let alone do, that will change a thing for the U.S. economy. Let's review. Alan Greenspan's Fed has manhandled interest rates to 41-year lows, pumping so much liquidity into the system that the yield curve in the U.S. treasury market looks like a hockey stick and money supply has ramped up at an alarming clip. But while consumers have seemed happy enough to take advantage of all the cheap money (with core inflation running above 2 per cent annually, how else to describe overnight lending rates of 1.75 per cent?), businesses have been warier. And with all those corporate buyers sitting on their hands, economic recovery is being reduced to a slow grind. Few dispute that the economy will recover eventually and that the stimulus in place now may have a hand in it. But it's becoming an open question as to when that will happen. Meantime, the clever clogs at the Fed may have backed themselves into an interest rate corner. Last week, fresh data confirmed that the policy makers aren't going to have an easy time of it tomorrow. July's industrial production number hit the market with the subtle foreshadowing ordinarily found in a cheap horror flick, only it's manufacturing that's being stalked. Output fell for the first time since last December, when the last recession was ending. Sounds like a case for a cut, and you can bet some of the doves at the U.S. Federal Open Market Committee table will make it. But the hawks who favour tighter money will surely note that U.S. households are buying everything that isn't nailed down, and a few things that are, in the case of the runaway housing market. That rate of spending by consumers for July -- the very month that manufacturing plants were so idle -- could push growth rates for the overall economy as high as 3 per cent for 2002. Which is where the case for standing firm on rates can be made. As always, chairman Al has been abstruse on the subject of rates. In fact, his recent testimony to Congress dwelled more in the realm of fiscal policy than monetary. Straying over into government mandate isn't new for the Fed, but some economists foolishly believed Mr. Greenspan would take the opportunity to give law makers his view of the economy. Instead, they got a lecture on deficit spending (from the same man who, not so very long ago, warned of the perils of running surplus governments). Still, Mr. Greenspan did signal that he isn't in any rush to cut rates, and that the level of stimulus already in the market will do its work in good time. The riveting question about tomorrow's meeting is whether the Fed changes the tone of the language in the statement that accompanies its decision, or what the media still likes to call its "bias." At the moment, the Fed has a neutral bias, implying the risks of economic weakness are about level with those of inflation. Changing the bias could be seen as a signal of future rate cuts, or at least a prolonged period before rates start to climb. It may be hard to remember this now, but central bankers haven't always been such a glamorous bunch, and many a meeting used to sneak by with just a handful of business scribes taking lonely note. But then journalists became irrationally exuberant, and for a while there the Fed looked like it might be the very clever and not-so-invisible hand on the levers of the economy. Since its highly visible response to the Russian debt collapse in 1998, stock markets have responded to rate cuts as though they are monetary stimulus to share prices, often sending higher the stocks of companies least affected by rate cuts -- such as high growth technology firms with little fixed investment and no debt. But with little to offer in the way of solutions, and the potential for great blame down the road if all this stimulus sparks higher inflation, the economists at the Fed might be thankful to find themselves out of the headlines and back on the inside pages of the business section. At least for the forseeable future. globeandmail.com