|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I was trying to make sense of his comments and wanted some feedback.
Admitedly, I got worked up over the politician but as for Larry he just
seemed sort of slanted.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Evans [mailto:evanscje@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:57 PM
> To: Omega List; frwd@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: CNBC...
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
|