|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
it sounds like you got too worked up over the utterly uninformed comments of
lah lah Larry Kudrow, the Republican party hack who bit the dust at Bear
Stearns after he had too much of it going in through his nostrils .. he
loves every stock - all the time , there is no inflation, no excess
speculation, no problems - be happy .. I think he still calls himself an
economist though I don't think he has an economics degree.. Noone on Wall
st.knows what his area of knowledge is. His awesome level of bullishness
and siplicity is perfect for stock promo TV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian" <bnm03@xxxxxxx>
To: "List, Omega" <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:22 PM
Subject: CNBC...
> That dude that came on CNBC just before the FOMC announcement and said
that
> the Fed was wrong to raise rates sounded a lot like that (republican)
> politician a few hours earlier they showed pontificating about how the Fed
> was wrong to meddle with rates, inflation wasn't a threat, was never a
> threat and they should just leave well enough alone. The guest (Michael
> Kudrow, I think or something like that) went on to cite an example saying
> that even as far back as 2500 years ago, when gold was low and a country's
> currency was strong was there ever the threat of inflation. While it
could
> be hard to debate that precedence, it's also possible that he's missing a
> point. That point being the reason why we are where we are currently is
> because the Fed has remained hawkish on rates which has all but kept gold
> low (remember the spike in gold a couple months ago) and our currency
> strong. If the Fed had listened to people like this way back when they
> started all of this, then gold could very well be higher and the currency
> stagnate or lower. It amazes me how there are always people, despite
> overwhelming evidence in favor of the current model which has worked in
the
> past and should continue to work, will still denounce it. This is more
ego
> talking then rational thought IMO.
>
> And of course he had his agenda too. He went on to give a plug for
> everybody's favorite tradergirl-esque presidential candidate, saying that
> social security as defined by bush (fuzzy as it may be) would further
> bolster the stock market with an influx of cash and that the stock market
> was acting positively to that. Of course, this is about as close to price
> fixing as it gets and the assumption here is that this could protect the
US
> from a prolonged bear market. My problem with this logic is that how can
a
> 1 time influx of cash continue to bolster the stock market overtime? Once
> it's in it's in and then who is left to buy at such ridiculous prices?
Once
> prices hit an equilibrium with the amount of money coming in from SS tax,
> then the market is left to operate normally against the current economic
> backdrop. Of course, the brokers and middle men make out like bandits and
> they're all heavy contributors to election campaigns. Details right now
are
> fuzzy on this and probably will remain that way for good reason through
the
> elections but I could see them restricting the types of companies you
could
> invest in by requiring you to go through a few select firms that carry a
> limited inventory of select stocks. Internet stocks need not apply which
> smacks of corruption and manipulation. If they don't do this then people
> will have the ability to invest their SS in comapnies like Red Hat, or
> Drugstore.com, or even god forbid, Omega. And I guess there will always
be
> those wierdos that loose it all and go on shooting sprees. Of course
people
> will buy at tops but if history repeats itself then market cycles should
> make them some money at least every 20 years or so.
>
>
|