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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (96268)	11/14/2003 1:31:58 PM
From: goldsheet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116957

Regardless of what one thinks of Bush, I do not think a billionaire with his own strange soci-economic agenda and an instititue that interferes with countries worldwide is a solution. It's an alternative that just adds to the sleeze factor of our current institutions. As for Asia/UK blame, lots of folks blame him, but few (if any) have the required proof (except maybe PM of Malaysia who was the most vocal) Anyway, the best analysis I have seen relating to hedge fund activity is the entrance of a large player in the marketplace causes smaller traders to be more agressive than they normally would (call it piling on, bandwagon effect, etc..) The general result is that although a specific market may be trending a certain way, the addition of the large player cause it to move faster and further than it would have otherwise. Insitutions that could have handled "orderly" markets are unable to handle "disruptive" markets and can/do fall. The long-term result is the same either way (currencies eventually get to their proper equilibrium), but substantial short-term damage can be caused by the large player.