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: Simba who wrote (233803)	4/6/2003 3:02:25 AM
From: Simba	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

On a different note, John Maudlin also seems to believe that markets do not need intervention because the arbs and the sheer randomness will keep them going on their random path. No one says that sheer randomness and arbs can keep a market stable enough not to impinge on the economy. In fact John says that it is good that we don't drop 68% in a short time frame as it will lead to a huge economic situation. George Soros and his thoery of reflexivity is of the opinion that markets are inherently unstable and need periodic interventions to keep them in their stable path. In fact LTCM fiasco could have crashed the economy. So there is nothing wrong or holy in the market not being intervened or stabilized for the good of a large mass of people. The Hong Kong govt is known to have bought stocks to stablize the market during the asian crisis. Now Japan is doing it so as to not completely wipe out their banks and economy. No one know how the US will react if there is a crash in the market of large proportions that may impact the economy. To be reallt non-interventionist the govt. should not even set the price of money which they do currently. So it is a case of how much intervention and in what markets and under what conditions. Every govt. chooses a different scheme. Simba

To: Simba who wrote (233803)	4/6/2003 9:36:25 AM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I think that skepticism is healthy. Sure, the government reports do not tell the whole story. At the same time, those on this thread who insist on the existence of the PPT are just hewing to a different orthodoxy, and without substantive evidence. So, I am skeptical of the mythology of the PPT as well. In "seeing through" the data, what do you see? I don't see anything through the fog. But then, I prefer not to bulls**t myself. >>most of the world who can see through the manufactured data! LOL...if they are seeing through anything, they are simply seeing what they want to see, not the truth....