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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Ox who wrote (703)	5/5/2003 3:36:25 PM
From: Henry J Costanzo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4912

Thanks........needed to be said....

To: The Ox who wrote (703)	5/5/2003 3:42:36 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4912

Hi Michael, In using the example of the Great Depression, I was looking at a worst case scenario. Traditionally, when we buy insurance, we are looking at worst case scenarios. We insure our homes for their total value, because in the worst case scenario, the entire home burns down. But in reality, most homes that suffer fire damage are only minimally destroyed. So, your opinion that a depression is unlikely may be quite correct. And should you choose not to "insure" against that possibility, your decision might also be quite correct. But I'm the type of guy who likes to think I'm reasonably prepared (or insured) for any contingency. So it logically follows that I think that everyone should own some small amount of precious metals, enough that one only need stash it in a secure location in one's home. If the value fluctuates over time, so what... I look at it as insurance, not an investment. Other people have differing and equally correct opinions. The issue is not one of trying to predict what will eventually happen. Rather the issue is the degree to which one prepares one's self for a future unknown event. KJC

To: The Ox who wrote (703)	5/5/2003 4:33:43 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4912

i think you misunderstood me. i was talking about a worse-case scenario, and i modified this by stating "hopefully and probably not as severe." however, while i doubt our economic hardships will be as severe as in the Great Depression, i suspect they will be much more severe than what has been discounted by the market. and we could have serious dislocations today that were unimaginable in the 30s. just over the weekend Munger, who i doubt is a lunatic, stated he would be surprised if there's not a derivatives meltdown in the next 5-10 years. luck, like financial intelligence, is cyclical. the US and much of the world were lucky in the 90s. there's been some unluck in the 2000s on the geopolitical fronts, and now SARS from leftfield. who even a few months ago would have imagined large parts of Asia would be shut down and Beijing a no-fly zone? life is full of surprises and they aren't always good. maybe unluck continues and who knows where that leads. the 1920s were a very lucky time coupled with the country's greatest five-year period of real productivity growth. this was followed by the worst economic period in US history, coupled with unluck like the Dust Bowl and Hitler and leading to WWII. is it impossible for the US to be so unlucky again? Try 18% unemployment instead of only 6%!!! it is hard to know what the current real unemployment numbers are, as the govt has become very adept at creating deceptive numbers. e.g., only those actively seeking jobs are counted among the unemployed; those too discouraged to work are not counted. perhaps a better metric is the employed workforce rate, which stands at about a decade low. i am very concerned about possible attrition of skilled labor and secondary effects in the US as service jobs are exported to China and India. so far the service sector of the US has held up fairly well even as our manufacturing sector has been gutted. what are the long-term implications of large parts of the skilled service sector having to compete with people in the developing world working for $2000-$5000 a year? it may be that the current recession does not just "snap back" the way it used to.

To: The Ox who wrote (703)	5/5/2003 7:17:00 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4912

sadly, not well reasoned. but you are entitled to it.

To: The Ox who wrote (703)	5/5/2003 11:59:19 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4912

<However, to envision a scenario which would cause the USA to find itself in a great depression at any time over the next couple of years is bordering on lunacy. > 1.) A very popular opinion in the late 20's early 30's too... 2.) When I get VERY opinionated about something I always sit back and look at why I feel so strongly... since it is only thinking based on learning from the inputs we choose, not some greater truth. << Come down from your ivory towers, take a break and step away from your computers and join the real world.> Well, we all live somewhere too... all you are really saying is you can 'see' and those you posted to can't. That's OK, but that's all it is. DAK