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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (6044)	1/10/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Janice, >>God knows I really really didn't enjoy last week. Sorry, I liked it. Hope there's more. That's not schadenfreude. I'm just hoping some return to "normal" valuations (not "new era" ones) will happen, so I may also buy some shares in our great country's industries. (Disclosure: The fact that I own some puts and shorts may also be influencing my sentiments <g>.) Jack

To: Janice Shell who wrote (6044)	1/10/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: Joseph G.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

J, <<I think what underlies everything is the premise--entirely true--that if one had put x dollars in the stock market in 1900, it'd be worth zillions more by now, despite the depression and several recessions.>> cpcug.org Not realy, or, it depends: most market in 1900 was railroad stocks, and even though airlines and FedEx were included 20- 30 years ago, a person invested in most stocks in 1900 would (i) either lose a ton of money, or (ii) barely break even by now, if some trading was done, but then taxes and trading expences have to be taken into account. In other words, treasury's printing press produced a whole lot of inflation, and with IRS they just keep all profits generated in this country to themselves. J