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: John Mansfield who wrote (15344)	8/5/1998 12:49:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 116764

OT - 'The Wall Street Journal's coverage is a different story however. It is the opinion of this publication that the reason the WSJ is skirting the issue lies at the very core of its existence. As the premier financial news publication, the WSJ is looked to as a kind of bible by investors everywhere. It is certainly conceivable that knowing this, the WSJ is downplaying the threat posed by Y2K to the financial world in an attempt to soothe jittery investors who are concerned about the possibility of a recession as a result of Y2K. In an attempt to prevent a run on the banks and a mass exodus of the stock market, which would indeed make the prediction of a Y2K recession a self-fulfilling prophecy, the WSJ could be deliberately limiting its coverage to the foreign arena and bland approvals of meaningless tests. If this is the case, the WSJ is in a very tight position. Does it A) calm investors fears and induce them to stay in the game, thereby putting them at risk to Y2K related economic disruptions? Or does it B) warn investors of the dangers posed by Y2K and risk causing a run on the banks and stock markets? ... y2ktimebomb.com