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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: que seria who wrote (47784)	3/28/2004 8:37:03 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 74559

I often will buy puts on individual stocks if they are priced right and have some liquidity. I am concerned that indexes will go mostly sideways, because of their mix of good and bad stocks.

To: que seria who wrote (47784)	3/28/2004 12:12:29 PM
From: brian h	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

"""I sure don't want to find out whether GWB has a true messianic zeal about right and wrong that trumps prudence in dealing with a "might makes right" situation in Taiwan. My read is that if pushed, he will push back.""" I do not think it is GWB or his group alone can decide whether to protect Taiwan or not. Replace GWB with Bill Cliton or future Senator Kerry. They have to act the same way if "the real deal" happens. Why? US has to protect its name not only as a super power but also a true supporter of democracy be it within its legal acts or as an idealogue. President Reagon or GWB can not change it nor can President Cliton. Let us assume the following situation about to happen. It is about US election time and China is about to attack Taiwan. As a current president be it GWB or Senator Kerry, will he be dumb enough to allow his opponent to tell US people that he is indeed soft on foreign policy and nationalism? I think President Carter is a good example. Do you still love him? (gg) He is a very very decent man however. I know the situation in China vs. US is entirely different from US vs Iraq. That is why both sides are posturing and engaging in talks to solve differences. That is why I called it a balance. (gg) The truth is China is not ready to attack (at least for now)and US is not willing to engage in wars but to protect its name. In China, the same route will be followed. Unless China do not want to be an emerging East Asia power, China would have to follow an established international playing rules ie. finding a good cause to attack anyone. It will not be like in Mao period anymore. In my humble optimistic opinion, a balance will be kept until one side (Could be China or US) is crazy enough to break that balance. The result will not be pretty. No country wants to be the soft side either. Constructive talking should solve most of the emerging problems. BH