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: zonder who wrote (248158)	7/2/2003 1:45:16 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

I don't see it as fatalistic at all. Our economy is sick and has been for some time. Think of the economy as a naturally cleansing organ. If you screw around with it and put things into it that aren't needed, it screws it up, but it will correct and reach a healthy equilibrium again. Instead of being fatalistic, I see the bear (both in the market and the economy) as the system's way of cleansing itself of a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be there. I see a tax cut as a reduction of intervention. A way to let the economy to heal itself. The money supply is a function of the Fed and the natural cycle. In spite of the Fed's attempt to keep the money supply increasing, it is actually contracting. I actually doubt that any politician who gets elected will have a view that they can't do anything to stop the natural cycles of the economy. I think it is likely a required mindset. Therefore they will all likely take some action that they see as being beneficial to the economy...and except for minor perturbations in the cycle, I am convinced that those efforts will fail. Any politician that takes the view that the best thing is to do nothing is also likely un-electable. That doesn't mean that it is the wrong thing to do.