|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
In evaluating economic policy, admittedly a complex subject, I would
consider:
* the capabilities of the people developing the policy
* the cogency of the policy itself.
On the first point (recognizing I am repeating myself), all the people
who have been working on his economy policy at a top level have either
been fired or have left of their own accord. Although many of the
individuals (including some of those who have gone) are/were talented,
they show no sense of working as a team to promote a single policy.
On the second point, the administration has failed to outline an
overall economic policy approach, which I attribute to the absence of
an economy policy manager similar to the role Rice plays on foreign
policy. Given Bush's management style, I think this is a major problem
in the formulation and implementation of economic policy -- there is no
one responsible for 'economic policy' as a single thing.
Bush is failing on both counts.
Regards
DanG
Bobh wrote:
So, your judgment on the policy is
based on your opinion of the individual/team that created it rather
than on the merits of the policy(s) itself?
<blockquote
>
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="TheGonch@xxxxxxxxxxx" href="">Dan
Goncharoff
<div
>To: <a
title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<div
>Sent:
Monday, May 26, 2003 3:47 AM
<div
>Subject:
Re: [RT] spx daily
Bush may (or may not) be smart politically, but there is clearly a
difference between his foreign policy team, which incorporates a
diversity of views, and his economic team, where very member of the
original team has quit or been pushed out. Bush seems to be lacking
the economic policy equivalent of Rice, someone who defines a
longer-term consistent message. Until he gets one, I will not trust
Bush's policy to be well thought-out.
That to me is the biggest reason to be worried about the future of
the US economy -- a president (or administration) that doesn't
understand what it is doing can cause a lot of damage.
Regards
DanG
Kent Rollins wrote:
<blockquote cite=""
type="cite">
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>The current economic condition is SYSTEMIC....and
thus resistant to "Quick fixes".
Three years of a down
economy is not "quick". And "resistant" is not impermeable.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay)
because they told him you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war, and
continue sponsoring a huge, costly bureaucracy in
Washington....it's economic suicide in the long run.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>That's why he fired them....but THEY were right.
If O'Neill and Lindsay were
in your opinion right, then why do you refer to them as Laurel and
Hardy. This is part of your problem, MASSIVE Mark. You
are overly critical of everything. We're either going to have
MASSIVE inflation or MASSIVE deflation. You don't care which
as long as it is MASSIVE and destructive.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>These deficit projections are just the
tip-of-the-iceberg.......and incredibly, there is still no talk of
government cut-backs in spending programs and transfer
payments.....just incredible !
Bush is smart politically.
There was a study done in the late 80's that said for every new
dollar of tax money brought to the government by economic growth,
Washington spent $1.30 (or some figure like that). That was the
80's. I doubt things have changed. Bush is choking of
Washington's money supply. That's the only way to get them to
reduce spending. It's the only way PERIOD. You seem to think
that these bigger deficits are a problem. Recently, there was a
book published that studied the effects of large national debts on
countries. England in the 1800's had a national debt that was
300% of GDP. THAT'S MASSIVE, MARK. A number even you would
appreciate. They built up that debt thru wars and empire
building. But it wasn't a problem for England. They paid it off
and now they are just fine.
The only way to make Tiny
Daschle say "Well, I guess we don't have money for new
social-dependency (aka vote-buying) programs." is to put him in a
deficit position. What are the Dumocrats really complaining about
today? Listen carefully. They are complaining that they can't
enact a drug benenfits program (aka social dependency program, aka
vote-buying program). They are complaining that they can't make
healthcare free for everyone. They don't want to pay down the
debt. They want to take our money from us and use it to make us
dependent on a social welfare State. Despite the fact that we
know socialism and welfare failed...MASSIVELY.
The only way...THE ONLY
WAY...to cut Washington's spending habit is to take away their
money. And THAT is exactly what Nucular George is doing.
Do you see anything in the
world today that is going right, MASSIVE Mark? Anything positive?
Kent Rollins
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="mar.ko@xxxxxxxxxxx" href="">Mark Simms
To: <a title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 12:55 AM
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">I'm not thinking MASSIVE here, only LONG-TERM.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Part of my bearishness comes from the current high PE
Ratios for one....there just seems to be so much ANTICIPATION for
a big recovery here...
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">I don't see it, quite frankly.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay)
because they told him you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war, and
continue sponsoring a huge, costly bureaucracy in
Washington....it's economic suicide in the long run.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Bush did not want to hear this....moreover, h<span
class="930204604-25052003">e's
"dumb"...economically.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">That's why he fired them....but THEY were right.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">These deficit projections are just the
tip-of-the-iceberg.......and incredibly, there is still no talk of
government cut-backs in spending programs and transfer
payments.....just incredible !
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Unfortunately, Bush may be out of office before this is
proven correct.....
<blockquote
>
<font
face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Rollins [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="">mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 8:16 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
How can YOU ignore everything
besides the tech sector? If everything but the tech sector has
turned the corner on the economy, that sounds like a good thing
to me.
With respect to the
"derivatives bubble", prove to me that there is one. This is
the first I've heard about it. Lately, Warren Buffet has been
saying a lot of stuff with which I don't agree.
FYI, consumers have been
repairing their balance sheets as well. Sorry I can't remember
the numbers on that one either. It's not as dramatic as the
improvements on the corporate side, but it was an improvement.
So you're joining Simms on
predicting MASSIVE Great Depression II.
Kent Rollins
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="bradcline@xxxxxxxxx" href="">Brad
Cline
To: <a title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:08 AM
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
<font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">How can you ignore the tech sector? That's
like pro forma accounting. If I didn't have to make my house
payment everything is rosy. The markets have seen their lows
only if the derivitivies bubble doesn't burst, or consumer debt
doesn't come home to roost. Warren Buffet has said that
derivities are a "time bomb" waiting to happen. Maybe the fed
will be able to balance everything out over time but I wouldn't bet on
it.
<blockquote
>
<font face="Times New Roman"
size="2">-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Rollins [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="">mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:12 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
Corporations have been doing
balance sheet repair for 2 years now. AT&T alone has
eliminate over $50 BILLION in debt. I saw on the tube last
week someone who had a stunning statistic on what the S&P
profits are if you ignore the tech sector. Wish I could
remember what that statistic was. And the tech sector will
fall in line soon enough. You are stuck in a rut. The
markets have seen their lows. Shake it off.
Kent Rollins
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|