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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jrhana who wrote (9936)	4/18/2003 12:56:50 PM
From: BSGrinder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 39344

You can have a real estate crash without having soup kitchens and tent cities. The Japanese have proved that. /BSG

To: jrhana who wrote (9936)	4/19/2003 6:05:22 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 39344

<But under the government flooding money inflation scenario (in which I believe) real estate will I believe more than bounce back> Agreed long run. <A severe crash with tent cities, soup kitchens, and a nuclear winter? I do not buy it. I think these guys (the ones who keep painting the super gloomy picture) are on some kind of bad trip.> Opinions are just opinions... you need massive unemployment for that to happen. I would think one would want to look at where, how, and in what proportion people are employed and the interconnect between sectors likely to get whacked with the whole. IMO, the economy looks totally different than even 20 years ago. Some part of me says it's much MORE vulnerable to domino firings as one sector falls on the next one... ie. the "service economy" needs someone to service... and part of me says the opposite. I don't know of any studies done on this, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. For instance, where DOES everyone work, and how are they interconnected? On the one hand everything is so much more flexible, with tons of people working for themselves, freelancing, etc. On the otherhand one would expect a byproduct of our system is interdependance and could imagine that while being a great system during normal times, during a shakeout could be very nasty. My opinion?? I have abandoned any simplified theories based on the past data. IMO I see no reason why any X sigma events couldn't happen either way with MUCH greater expectancy than models would predict. In fact, it is the advent and continued use of 'models' and the soaring value placed in them and the investment community just during my lifetime that gives most people confidence to make claims like yours. So although my philosophy is that most of this isn't worth worrying about anyway [enjoy life!], that doesn't mean sit there with your money where Smith Barney says to put it! Put it where you CAN enjoy life regardless of the outcomes. DAK

To: jrhana who wrote (9936)	4/19/2003 6:17:14 PM
From: Silver Super Bull	Respond to of 39344

jrhana, RE: "I think these guys (the ones who keep painting the super gloomy picture) are on some kind of bad trip." Here's a story that I think is very relevant with regard to bubble markets and how fast they can implode. I was in telecom in the year 2000. Sales were great in the industry. There were virtually no signs of any type of impending slowdown in sales. And then 2001 came. It was an unbelievable industry-wide decline that was immediate and devastating. Sales declined at a 30%+ rate for two years, and sales have yet to look like it will turn the corner anytime soon. Keep in mind that telecom was a huge industry that was closely followed. It just goes to show that bubbles can be deflated extremely quickly with little or no signs. Kind of like having a vicious dog as a pet...it can be well-behaved for years, and then unpredictably turn on the owner in an instant. DB