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: William JH who wrote (12141)	5/24/1998 6:35:00 PM
From: PaulM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116822

William, here it is. Duetche Economist Sez Asia Crisis to Spread biz.yahoo.com What of all the outstanding loans and derivatives exposures in these emerging markets? An IMF bailout for each? What seems to be shaping up is a crisis attacking weaker economies all over the globe, which will likely work its way to stronger economies and finally America.

To: William JH who wrote (12141)	5/24/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: Ed Pittman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116822

William.. I think the information that ABC gave out is far from the truth... First..a stripper well is around 10-15 or less per day..I'll take all the 20 to 40 BpD wells you can find. Lets see...A 20 BPD at $ 15.00 crude..= $300 per day...That's $ 109.500 per year. Sure most oil companies made great profits last year, with crude going to $ 25.. And I can assure you that no one is capping a 40 barrel per day well. Here is Calif. property has become more valuable than some of the stripper wells depending on the area. Here is something to run by ya..In the 60's crude oil was $ 3.00 per barrel..And companies made great profits. I was in Bakersfield a month ago and one field was telling me that, they where losing $ 1.00 per barrel for every barrel they produced. I think crude was around $ 10.00 per barrel for their crude..( it could of been 2 months during that last dip ) Regards, Ed

To: William JH who wrote (12141)	8/24/2001 12:27:56 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116822

Economist Kudlow: Greenspan Must Go Wes Vernon Friday, Aug. 24, 2001 WASHINGTON - A leading economist has urged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to resign. Appearing on CNBC Wednesday, Lawrence Kudlow, CEO of Kudlow & Co. LLC, took stock of the central bank’s disappointingly weak action Tuesday. The Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) cut the target interest rate a mere 25 basis points, or one-fourth of a percentage point. Clearly, this was not adequate, he believes. If he’d had his way, Kudlow would have seen to it that rate was cut a full point. In his own newsletter preceding the Fed’s latest action, Kudlow noted that commodity and financial indicators had signaled "an inadequate volume of high-powered liquidity in the economy.” This, he said, would not do. The liquidity is not enough "to finance all but the most tepid sub-par economic recovery.” "A more normal liquidity spread would have the Fed’s policy rate about 75-basis points below the two-year note,” the economist told the readers of Kudlow’s Commentary. "This would allow banks an easy two-year carry trade that would profitably enhance their earnings and capital lending base for renewed expansion.” Noting that the New York Times and Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal have come to a "correct” Fed-must-do-more viewpoint, Kudlow said that "if the monetary authorities were to apply 1990’s type stimulus to today’s situation, they could easily cut the overnight target rate by 75 basis-points to 3%.” After the Fed made its minimal 25 basis point cut Tuesday, Kudlow wrote in National Review Online: "The Fed eases policy, and the stock market tanks. What does that tell you? Well, if you believe as we conservatives do that markets are smarter than governments, then it tells you that something is very wrong with Fed policy.” Just before that column appeared, Kudlow was on CNBC urging that Greenspan resign, not only because of the Fed’s failure to cut rates by an amount that is adequate to meet the economic circumstances, but also because the central bank has tightened liquidity by not allowing banks to make loans. Earlier this month, NewsMax.com reported administration sources as saying Greenspan had warned them to start searching for a successor because he wanted to resign, if possible by the end of the year. The Fed vehemently denied the report. But Kudlow and a number of other economists are of the opinion that it’s time for the Fed chairman to make a graceful exit. Not that he puts all the blame on the Fed boss. Kudlow tells the readers of his newsletter that Treasury Secretary "Paul O’Neill’s rejection of a capital gains tax cut or other business relief measures that would directly impact the recessionary business investment sector is the wrong policy signal.” However, White House sources tell NewsMax.com the administration has no plans to push for a cut in capital gains, despite the strong pressures in that direction from Capitol Hill conservatives. "Democratic arguments that budget surpluses should be maintained in recession are totally Hoover-esque,” Kudlow adds. newsmax.com