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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MJ who wrote (53540)	3/29/2003 11:53:30 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Well there are a lot of subjective issues with Bush's agressive war stance- not the least of which is the issue of whether this action will actually increase global terror attacks - but we aren't going to change any minds on the matter here, I am sure of that. But one area where Bush seems really, really, really, really clueless is international trade and since the global markets are currently larger than the US in total and potentially 10x the US mkt this naivete from the US president is not something we can afford, imo. Dishing out the "regime change" and assassination rhetoric might have an effect of scaring your target into defeat (or it might not) - but the side effect of this is a global boycott of US goods which is potentially much more damaging to our society than the tyrant in power who we want to remove. It also spurs the enemy into fighting the good fight doesn't it? At my company people are literally afraid to travel to Europe now. Is this good or bad for business? And its not just europe, don't kid yourself... Canada, the Pacific Islands, rest of asia, you name it virtually every american and every american company is getting tomatoes thrown at it right now. Back at home wrt the economy- can anybody explain to me how these relentless "terror alerts" actually achieve anything? What are we supposed to do when we get one of these anyway? Or should I ask, what do we do when there isn't a code orange terror alert (about a week per year) - do we go out in the street and dance? This stuff costs a lot, increases tension and serves no purpose as far as I can see. I kept hearing that this war was the make it or break it for Bush. Unless it wraps up in a few weeks (which I seriously doubt- it looks like another vietnam/N Ireland/Somalia to me) Bush's poll numbers will drop dramatically I predict. THEN the markets will rally, because the side effects of Bush's policies are killing growth companies. I don't think we need to wait for 2004. So my point is, I am not blaming Bush for the stock market per se. But I am blaming him for the global boycott of US goods going on now, I am blaming him for stirring the tension in asia which has their economies in limbo... all of that. These things get resolved in some way and the mkts will rally I predict. JMO

To: MJ who wrote (53540)	3/31/2003 5:03:41 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Respond to of 64865

Interesting tidbit from an article today (CNN/Money): money.cnn.com "The Wall Street Journal reported that the WTO will miss Monday's deadline to agree on liberalizing agricultural trade, critical to the Doha talks' success, in part because the United States and the European Union -- the world's biggest agriculture exporters -- couldn't come to terms about a dispute that was roiling even before the Iraq issue heated up. The agriculture row is just the latest in a string of skirmishes between the Bush administration and other nations, including the U.S. decision to exit the Kyoto accords on global warming and the imposition of steel tariffs that the WTO has ruled are illegal. "If the U.S. administration is in favor of free trade, it hasn't looked so much to uphold those standards at the level of the WTO," said Raymond van der Putten, Euro zone economist at BNP Paribas in Paris. " You may want to note that the rift between the US & WTO began before 9/11.

To: MJ who wrote (53540)	3/31/2003 5:13:09 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Here is some more from the same article: "The Achilles heel of the U.S. economy is its dependence on foreign capital...which may be the only way that Europe can keep American unilateralism in check," Bryson said. And if Europeans force the United States to do most of the heavy lifting in rebuilding post-war Iraq, that could put further upward pressure on the U.S. federal budget deficit, already expected to be at a record high in 2003, and further depress the dollar. We need to be mindful of the impact budget deficits have on interest rates. Rising interest rates cannot be allowed to happen while the country is contracting/treading water.

To: MJ who wrote (53540)	4/4/2003 4:38:49 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

"IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THAT MONEY YANKED FROM OUR MARKETS WAS FUNDING THE TERROISTS? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE MONEY YANKED "LOST " IN THE MARKETS IS DUE TO THE MARKET SYSTEM ITSELF? WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT HAS ALLOWED SHORT SELLING RATHER THAN AN INVESTMENT BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF BUYING AND SELLING AND TAKING GAINS AND LOSSES." I'll go on cause-and-effect. A market-correction was looming late in 2000. George Bush became president, we lapsed into recession in 2001. Now it's 2003 and we are still in recession and the stock market reflects our economic slowdown. During that time, foreign investment (FOR WHATEVER REASON) in the US dropped like a rock. Did the machinations of the Mr. Bush's foreign policy cause FUD and a subsequent withdrawl of significant amounts of foreign capital from our equity markets? Yes, I believe it did. Was it the only reason for the withdrawl? Probably not. Does the responsibility for this economic decline fall on the shoulders of Mr. Bush? Yes, it does. If Mr. Bush succeeds in reversing the current course of our stagnant economy, will all be forgiven? Yes, it will. Nothing succeeds like success. "COVERT ACTIVITIES AND DIPLOMACY WERE NOT ABLE TO NEUTRALIZE THE TERROISM.." This sentence needs to be placed in the present tense. Prior to 9/11 there was little involvement in anything resembling covert intelligence. Additionally, there was no real activist CIA, after the agency had been gutted by Mr. Clinton (which I think was terribly short-sighted). Finally, I wouldn't give much credence to the efforts of then-Secretary-of-State Albright, especially wrt the Middle-East. In the present tense, the answer is a resounding Yes. Just read the daily newspapers. "THE BELLIGERANT POSTURING HE DID WAS A PERFECT RESPONSE FOR THE SITUATION. HOW ELSE TO FACE DOWN SADDAM AND THE TERROISTS. " The belligerent posturing began the day he took office, and was first given voice with a rejection of the Kyoto Treaty. It continued through the use of Steel Tarriffs, despite our involvement in NAFTA. It was easy enough for everyone in foreign government to see that a bully had returned to the White House after the benign and accomodating Mr. Clinton. There is a looming question about individual state soverignty and the power of governance that has been accorded to the United Nations. Cynics call it the "Glass Menagerie on the East River" and the Bush Administration has seen fit, through their assertion of American dominance as the global superpower, to promote that viewpoint. One example is the war we are now fighting in Iraq. The decision to go to war in Iraq despite UN disapproval is an indication of the level of concern Mr. Bush had for the problems in the Middle-East. Clearly it was something the entire administration agonized over for a number of months. Nevertheless, the issue isn't going away. Governance of the planet Earth and the impact of our growing population and economies and their affect on the Environment are the biggest issues facing us in the next 50 years (IMHO). "YOU HAVE ERRONEOUSLY PLACED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERROSISM ON OUR AMERICAN SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM OF PRODUCTION AND TRADE." Your word "responsibility" is an unfortunate choice of words. It implies judgement, guilt or innocence. It is a condition of our system of capitalism. That has been the case since the industrial revolution. Read your history. We have moved way beyond Marx's 19th century accusations of "bourgeois imperialism", but it must be acknowledged that the movement of capital into primitive, pre-industrial societies causes a significant upheaval. It is not at all unusual for third world countries to react reflexively to this kind of incursion. Our country spent the last 50 years of the 20th century trying to stabilize Central and South America. Remember "Yanqui Go Home!!" ?? It will take a fair amount of time for the Middle-East to settle down, as well. In the end, we want stable, productive local economies throughout the Middle-East, where an educated workforce is ready willing and able to buy appliances, durable goods, home electronics, foodstuffs, and entertainment products/services from global providers. As I said before, alienating these individuals is simply not in the cards. We need a leadership in the White House that rises to the challenge of making this happen. Mr. Bush may be part of the solution (cleaning house), but we need the skills of statesmanship and global diplomacy (skill he does not possess), to move us forward. Worldwide peace should cause the stock markets to explode. The opportunity for capital expansion is enormous. That is what I forsaw in the late 1990's before we hit this "speed bump".