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 : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (4445)	6/12/1998 9:22:00 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Dear Mike & all - sorry to jump in. Obviously, one cannot deny there are serious challenges to the global economies, in which all nations - to a greater and lesser extents - join to the hip. However, it is important to recognize individual problems as they present themselves. In a way, even you are tempted to invested in Korea, so it may be fair to assume that implicitly you and others recognize the differences. Having said that, indeed Japan carries a lot of weight, SE Asia in particular and world economy in general. So, the deep seated denial can only add to the pain. OTOH, different people have different time scales. Maybe Jess is right that SE Asia recovery is more a round bottom than a shape rebound. Also, he [and probably most causal observers like people in this thread] is right that the Japanese govt has been neligent. However, I'd argue that Japan problems are harder to fix [than, say, Indoesnia.] I could be wrong, but I don't think the end of the world is not nigh yet <VBG>. To that end, I subscribe to Secretary Rubin's POV, namely, while there may be steps for international communities to take to stabilize the situation, Japanese economy must be fixed by the Japanese. Btw, you sez "Too many warnings got in the way..." I was kinda curious why so many posts of those [nothing wrong with that, just curious.] Best, Bosco

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (4445)	6/12/1998 7:54:00 PM
From: Stitch	Respond to of 9980

Mike, <<Oh. I forgot your article. I skimmed it but forgot to respond to it. Sorry. Too many warnings got in the way. >> As I have stated before I am grateful that you take the time to cut and paste so many earnings warning because I think there is value in the information. I skim them always and do not believe you are "tilting at windmills" when you put emphasis on them. Corporate profits deserve close attention always. But, by your own condescending statement above, I think you need to step back and at least consider allowing the room to consider all data. <<Plus a "consortium of research groups" hmmm...makes me wonder about this, right off the bat. >> A research consortium is suspect in your mind? Do you always reject research groups information out of hand? Exactly what is your agenda to cast a belittling aspersion on a source in an article that I post? Maybe you want to at least consider the source before you do? "The Conference Board is the world's leading business research and membership organization with 2,800 companies and other enterprises in 63 counties. A not-for-profit, non-advocacy organization that has been in business for over 80 years, The Conference Board provides timely research on management practices and economic trends and is the most frequently quoted private source of business information." You may want to visit their web site. It is a very resourceful group IMO and I have enjoyed rewading their publications from time to time. conference-board.org Say what? Isn't it convenient to simply drop off China, Hong Kong, Singapore,Taiwan, AND Japan, because the author's definition of "most effected by the crisis." Yeah right. The author's statement is meaningless. Almost underhanded. Well, actually if you had read the post more carefully you would understand the author is a reporter , in this case anonymous, who was simply quoting the source, which was the economist. So lets assume you mean that the economist is dissembling. I think you have a point. Japan, specifically, is a notable abscence from the statement. But it was still interesting to me to see just what the five tigers meant to the U.S. in terms of export markets. I was surprised at the figures frankly. <<Stitch thanks for trying to post some "good" news, but this one just doesn't hold any water at all. By the way, who wrote it and where did you pick it up?>> Sorry my post didn't meet your exacting standards. I manually typed it out of articles that appeared in the New Straights Times, published here in Kuala Lumpur. They were a typical wire pick up storys. Best, Stitch