|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Actually you repeated yourself on both counts
along with answering my question in the affirmative. <FONT
face=Verdana size=2>It's so easy to criticize but please tell us what your
solutions would be.
Would you prefer higher taxes? We know from
the luxury tax on yachts to the more recent tax on cars that NJ tried (and
countless other examples) that when you tax something you get less of it.
We also know that Hoover tried this in the post bubble era in the 1930's
with less than spectacular results.
Would you prefer higher interest rates, or tight
monetary policy? How about more regulation? Or better yet, instead of
torte reform why don't we give the trial attorneys even more freedom to
ravage the economy?
How about more social welfare programs which
would expand the already, er um, Massive size of the federal government?
Call me silly but it seems to me that government should be doing the same thing
that corporations have been doing the past three years. Unfortunately
that's a pipe dream as the votes don't exist in the Senate to cut spending
and/or eliminate waste/pork.
It's certainly a challenge to "create" jobs or
"grow" an economy in a post bubble era where businesses are all
recovering from the over-investing/over-hiring binge they embarked
on in the late 90's. Toss in 9/11 and you have an even more
challenging environment. From history we know that time is the only real
cure for any of this and it's only been three short years since the bubble
popped. In any event it looks to me like Bush has it largely
right in the areas they can influence - despite your empty criticisms to the
contrary.
Bob
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
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.RegardsDanGBobh 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:
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.RegardsDanGKent Rollins wrote:
>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.
>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.
<SPAN
class=930204604-25052003>
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.
>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:
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
I'm not
thinking MASSIVE here, only LONG-TERM.
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...
I don't
see it, quite frankly.
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.
Bush did
not want to hear this....moreover, h<SPAN
class=930204604-25052003>e's
"dumb"...economically.
That's
why he fired them....but THEY were right.
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 AMTo: <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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:
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 PMTo: <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
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
RollinsTo unsubscribe from this
group, send an email to:<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
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.
|