|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
It's difficult to respond to your statement because
of your lack of specifics.
Consider what happens when governments intervene in
stock markets. The myths of "easy money", "can't lose", "buy and hold" and
"cash is trash" are perpetuated and reinforced. Uninformed investors
(speculators, actually) take risks for which they are unprepared. They
mortgage their homes and run up their credit cards to buy the latest
crap-dot-com IPO. Now, the politicians have to pump even more money into
support mechanisms, because if those fools lose their houses when the market
gets its reality check, they will vote in a new batch of political
hacks.
On the other hand, no intervention means up and
down cycles continue, but they are not accentuated. Speculators
understand they risk losing their investment. When a market
drops, there is a cleansing and preparation of a firmer base for the next move
up.
I can think of no circumstance where government
intervention in the markets is not bad.
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Adrian Pitt
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:32
AM
Subject: RE: [RT] Re: Fed supporting
market
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Wrong...an extremely superficial statement full or more holes than you
can imagine.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Saying intervention is the problem is like saying guns are bad.....and
we all know how<FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2> silly that is.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Adrian
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Code 2
[mailto:Code2@xxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2003 3:50
AMTo: Realtraders ListSubject: Re: [RT] Re: Fed
supporting marketThe Austrian school economists
would respond thatproviding liquidity *is* intervention, and that
anyintervention in the markets contributes to boom and
bustcycles. Intervention is the problem, not the solution
;)----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry B. Rhodes"
<trhodes3@xxxxxxxxx>To:
<realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:16
PMSubject: [RT] Re: Fed supporting marketAs others have pointed
out, providing liquidity is not thesame as intervening directly to
support the market. I haveconfirmed as fact that the FED is legally
capable ofintervening directly, but know of no confirmed
incidentwhere this has happened. This is the question i am
askingProviding liquidity is the standard FED response to
anyfinancial crisis, real or imagined. 1987, Y2K and 9/11 area few
examples of this.regards,tbr> The fact is it
did happen in 1987. The fed told the banks to> give unlimited
credit.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
|