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.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (1565)	10/14/1998 9:18:00 AM
From: Zardoz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81294

For the "sword of Damocles" to fall, would require a higher bond yield than what it is now. The DOW is the last to break, and break it will. But time is the most important. As the fluctuations spread, the last safe haven is the DOW 30. The cracks are visiable. And unless the liquidity is increased than the DOW will splinter. In April or earlier I suggested a 6300 Dow. But that was based on higher yield. The treasuries sure are showing signs of manipulation or massive short covering. The US FED is not in the picture, as their most recent data suggests a tightening stance, while talking the opposite. Look at the M2. A reduction of +$4Billion, in the last week. Andrews' Pitchfork? {this is the last hope for GOLD, if it doesn't break $296 today, than it may climb above $310 by months end} equis.com

To: sea_urchin who wrote (1565)	10/14/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81294

Searle: This bear markrt still is quite young -- less than 4 months. Bears typically last about a year. During the 1973-75 bear, the nifty-fifty of that era held up over a year before getting smashed. Zeev anticipates a Dow bottom around 6300 next June or July. This is in close accord with my own thinking.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (1565)	10/14/1998 9:55:00 AM
From: jgibbs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81294

Interesting take on gold price and lack of liquidity: Memo To: Howell Raines, NYT editorial page editor From: Jude Wanniski Re: Sunday's lead editorial, "Coping With Economic Crisis" There are some nitpicks I would have with your lead editorial Sunday about the global economic crisis, but reading the paragraph concerning the Fed was the nicest thing that happened to me all weekend. To remind you: "A weaker dollar could lead to a higher reported inflation. If it does, that will not be a good reason for the Federal Reserve to back off from trying to stimulate the economy. It is deflation, not inflation, that threatens the world now, and that will not change until low commodity prices begin to move up in a convincing way." The key phrase is the last, about commodity prices. That's what monetary deflation is all about and your editorial gets it right! You don't say what the Fed should do to get commodity prices up, and I take that as a positive too, because the Fed is not likely to get commodity prices up by lowering interest rates. The object is not exactly to "stimulate the economy," as you put it. That phrase implies the government has the capacity to inspire economic activity by doing something positive in this situation -- the usual mistake is to think of the Fed "adding credit" by "lowering interest rates." This is not quite what is going on. The failure of the Fed during the past 20 months to supply liquidity being demanded by the world economy has caused the decline in commodity prices to levels that have bankrupt commodity producers and brought their creditors to their knees. The first commodity that responds to a shortage of liquidity is gold, because of all commodities, it has the most monetary properties. Unless the Fed supplies SURPLUS liquidity now, the gold price will not rise, nor will other commodity prices. In other words, the Fed must give the banking system more reserves than it is demanding now. Yes, prices would go up, but as long as the Fed does not overdo the addition of surplus reserves, there will be no re-ignition of inflation. Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes have suggested $325 gold as a minimum. I would prefer $350, to get all the deflation, but if the only two political people say $325, it is better than where we are now and I will defer to them. (They have other advisors who say gold should be lower than $325 and some who say $325, but no others at the moment who say $350.) If you notice, The Wall Street Journal has not taken a position on the gold price. That's because editor Bob Bartley has been juggling conflicting views of several other supply-siders who have different theories on where gold should be. The closest he has come was in an August 18 editorial, "Time to Relax, Alan," in which he notes the gold price seems too low, at a point when it was at $285. Bob Mundell, who is the most highly regarded supply-side theoretician, says $300 is the low point that the financial system can stand, but he has indicated $325 would be more tolerable. I may have more of a concern for debtors and I'm more the empiricist than the theoretician. In watching gold for the last decade on a day-to-day basis, it has always struck me that the markets seem happiest at the $350 level. polyconomics.com