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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (98638)	4/22/2003 5:53:27 PM
From: Dave Feldman	Respond to of 132070

I have a friend who is heavily in bond funds, some of which sport long maturities, and I'm worried about it. He is interested primarily in capital preservation, and will not get involved in stocks, short or long. What do you think will happen to TIPS funds when interest rates go up?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (98638)	4/23/2003 1:27:59 AM
From: Seaworthy Lyric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, I decided to move this subject to this part of the woods. I always thought that Iran would be next, (even though I vaguely remember hearing that Richard Pearle indicated that it would be North Korea). But, in light of the fact that the cakewalk through Iraq did not live up to the expectations and the “unexpected’ (give me a break) rise in Shiite independence, they might actually want to extend spring training, cover their backs, and go into Syria first. I am totally in agreement with you that Iran will be by far the hardest nut to crack, from the military point of view. Furthermore, I think, (and this is total speculation) that the backlash to an invasion of Iran would be immediately much more violent and possibly lead to the toppling of a couple supportive regimes. Seeing how quickly we used up our smart missile arsenal on Iraq, Iran might eventually turn out to be our own little Afghanistan. As far as the Saudis I still think that in principle they are already occupied and no matter who is charge of their government could not mount a significant defense. Couple side notes: 1. The term “Busheviks” is brilliant and much more appropriate than neocons or hawks. There is nothing conservative about this bunch, and the hawk is much to noble of a creature to be seen in their company. <g> 2.I have been on and off SI, for the past 7 years. One thing that never seems to amaze me is your clarity, whether it is in the midst of a bubble or an international crisis your remarks are right on. I just hope that the management of SI rewards you well. <g>