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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (24886)	11/7/2007 6:27:37 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217619

RIP to your mom-in-law. 90 is a good year. as to cdma and such, no tech investment for me, unless it is biotech, energy tech, or platinum tech or gold tech,or food tech communication tech is cheap and getting cheaper

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (24886)	11/7/2007 6:53:25 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217619

just in on the e-mail circuit quote General Motors reports the biggest loss in mankind's history, $39 billion, or $69/share. of course it was mostly a big write-off, but still....a remarkable figure. unquote quote pursuant to our discussion about Greenspan, take a look at this: globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com snip: Fox News: "So why do we need a central bank?" Greenspan: "Well the question is a very interesting one. We have at this particular stage a fiat money which is essentially money printed by a government and it's usually the central bank which is authorized to do so. Some mechanism has got to be in place that restricts the amount of money which is produced, either a gold standard or currency board or something of that nature because unless you do that, all of history suggests that inflation will take hold with very deleterious effects on economic activity. ... There are numbers of us, myself included, who strongly believe that we did very well in the 1870-1914 period with an international gold standard". Fox News: "We did well without the Federal Reserve. People forget that." unquote

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (24886)	11/7/2007 6:58:27 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217619

the terms for peace with honor has been tabled, per stratfor QUOTE Geopolitical Diary: The Recent Iranian Proposal for Iraq Iran presented a proposal for stabilizing Iraq over the weekend during a conference on Iraqi security in Istanbul, Turkey. The heart of the plan revolves around admitting militia members into the Iraqi military, granting amnesty to militants who have not cooperated with terrorists and expelling private security contractors from the country -- particularly beleaguered U.S. firm Blackwater. According to State Department Iraq coordinator David Satterfield, who attended the conference, Iran presented an "extraordinary" and "fantasy" proposal that suggested contributing Syrian and Iranian troops to maintain security in Iraq. The Iranians also suggested putting off discussions of regional rights and oil sharing for two years. The Iraqi government responded on Tuesday, rejecting the plan and saying that it "will not accept that internal Iraqi affairs are liable to interference by regional countries." The two land mines in the Iranian proposal are the inclusion of militias in the Iraqi security forces and the exclusion of any group that has cooperated with terrorists. What the Iranians mean by this is that the Sunni insurgents who have cooperated with al Qaeda should be excluded, while Shiite militants who might have engaged in terrorism but not collaborated with al Qaeda should be included. Just as important, implicit in the Iranian proposal is the idea that these fighters would be admitted to the Iraqi military and police forces as distinct units. This would mean they would retain their identities, and that their primary loyalty would be to their former organizations -- guaranteeing continuing instability. By putting off the question of regionalism and adding Shiite militia members to the army, the Iranians are attempting to place their Shiite partners in control. The Iraqi government's objections are not minor ones. The Iranians are trying to edge the Sunnis out of the government and maximize the influence of the Shia. What is interesting, however, is that concrete proposals are being exchanged. An Iranian spokesman on Nov. 5 called the proposal "a general plan for others to comment on," implying flexibility. It isn't yet clear whether this is Iran's ultimate position or a deliberately hard jumping-off point for bargaining. The Iranians have kept it ambiguous, putting forward a tough proposal but carefully leaving themselves room to maneuver. All of this provided the backdrop for a U.S. military announcement on Tuesday about plans to release nine Iranians being held in Iraq, including two of the five captured at an Iranian facility in Arbil (who the Iranians have said are diplomats). These captives have been a major issue for the Iranians, who have called their capture illegal and demanded their release. The U.S. decision to let almost (but not quite) all of them go is clearly a gesture made in the wake of the Turkey discussions and the Iranian proposal. Unacceptable or not, the offer is an opening, and the United States appears to have reciprocated with an olive branch of its own. And yet, we have been here many times in the past, looking at what appears to be the beginning of serious negotiations between Washington and Tehran -- only to watch such talks die down. The Iraqi rejection, coupled with the U.S. prisoner release, positions both the United States and Iran. Washington is saying no to the specifics of the new proposal but is clearly thanking Tehran for at least proposing something. The Iraqis have said Iran has no place defining the future of Iraq. But the reality is that, given Iran's influence among the Shia, it will have a role -- as will the Americans. Iran and the United States cannot impose a reality on Iraq, but either one could prevent the other from imposing a reality that it doesn't like. Therefore, as unlikely as it has appeared for a while, U.S.-Iranian negotiations are logical, especially in a war in which logic has not always predominated. UNQUOTE

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (24886)	11/7/2007 7:13:14 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217619

My condolences, Mq. No doubt a good life well lived. For those unfamiliar with your reference to chalk and cheese: worldwidewords.org