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 : Newmont Mining(NEM) & Newmont Gold(NGC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (244)	5/29/1999 1:39:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 587

There is no such thing as a savings hole. Savings as a quantity is inferred. Policy should never target savings. Savings could be investment or it could be storage. The most deluded misunderstanding in economics is to extrapolate from personal experience that it is desirable to have savings in a form where money sits in banks idly, The most desirable circumstance is to have no idle savings. All savings should be invested and they are. So savings equals investment. The stock market has risen tremendously because there has been a large increase in savings. The current account deficit simply means we sell less than we buy, so foreigners accumulate more of our currency than we accumulate of theirs. They keep their accumulations in dollars rather than convert them into holdings in their own currencies. They keep the accumulations in Treasuries. This is a preference. They aren't reducing Treasuries due to the deficit in the current account. They have been increasing Treasuries for decades and it is due to the preferences of holding. If we had been selling as much as we were buying, and then if similar conditions of superior returns existed in dollar denominated investments, Treasury holdings by foreign banks would have risen while there was no current account deficit. You say that central banks work together to promote their own agendas. This is trivially true just like it is trivially true that individual investors look for fundamental monopolies so that they can benefit. I have never encountered an investor who seeks a company under strong competition. The FED and BOJ have worked together to reduce chaos in the forex. At the same time these central banks have to pursue domestic only policies which could be construed as contrary to the interest of the other. So they both do and don't promote their own agendas. The problem lies in how you wish to look at things. In your current way of looking, you see a view which is contradictory. Change your view.