|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This is the last post I will respond to on this idiotic subject so that
we can get back to things that are relevant, rather than stuff in the
realm of Isaac Asimov and JRR Tolkein.
Let's see. Japan, China and Hong Kong OPENLY intervene in their markets.
They have the legal structures to do it. As far as I know, though I am
not sure on this, they buy stocks and not futures too.
Also, we have just gone through the whole LTCM debacle where Mr.
Greenspan railed against over leveraging. Okay, the spooz are only about
10:1 or 11:1, but if something like that ever got out, it would
definitely not sit too well anywhere. Besides, these guys are smart.
They've seen that such intervention sure has not helped Japan, why would
they do it here?
I always say never say never, but Mr. Sieler, that bridge is still for
sale, and I can throw in the Enterprise with Captain Kirk on it too! We
can meet in front of the NY Fed. Maybe your friend Mr. Greenspan will
lend you some money from the futures trading gains.
D. Sieler wrote:
>
> Steven,
>
> Let me see if I have this correct. Japan, China, Hong Kong, etc., all
> of these "governments" actively intervene in their stock markets, but
> the United States under Clinton, Rubin, & Greenspan don't.... whew!
> That is a stretch.
>
> The United States already intervenes overtly via interest rates &
> increasing the money supply and forces taxpayers to contribute to the
> corporate welfare schemes around the world (the IMF bailouts), and now
> you don't think this government has a vested interest in attempting to
> keep this market from tanking?
>
> Clinton's political skin is on the edge of a cliff and Greenspan (money
> creator) and Rubin (Wall Street Rubin), both interventionists, work for
> him.... hmmmm.... what did the Roman used to say, "Qui Bono?".... Who
> benefits?
>
> With all due respect, Steven, the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu would suggest
> that one not exclude anything simply because they can not see it.
> ----
> Regards,
>
> DS
>
> steven poser wrote:
> >
> > TQuinn211@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Ah, that bastion of the financial press, the National Enquirer, er New
> > York Post. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you...It would have to show up on the balance sheet some place.
> >
> > This makes no sense. If the Fed was that worried about the markets
> > (which I think they should be) they would have at least cut the discount rate on 29-Feb. Interventions do not work unless they are done big time.
> > Witness the sad history of central bank intervention in the forex
> > market. All it does is clobber the shorts and give those who were not
> > short an opportunity to short at a better level. If the Fed wants to
> > prop up the market, all they need to do is say that they are looking
> > into LEGAL ways of buying stocks. That'd scare the heck out of anybody
> > shorting the market.
> >
> > Caroline Baum just wrote a great piece for Bloomberg News talking about similarly idiotic conspiracy theories that always crop up in the forex market and bond pits, the latest of which called for a rate cut over the weekend following an emergency meeting last week of the Fed.
> >
> > Watch out for the little green men. If they start buying spooz,
> > Andromeda's the limit!
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >
> > > Earl,
> > >
> > > Here is a site from a newspaper article that agrees with you.
> > >
> > > All the best
> > >
> > > Terry Quinn
> > >
> > > http://nypostonline.com/business/5459.htm
|