Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (60892)	2/22/2002 9:10:26 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

Katherine, Good point. Nasdaq is only down 3300 points. Unemployment is in the 5's, not the 7's and so on. Now we have to digest and get thru the effect of enron on the value of stated earnings going forward. mike PS A question. When does an inventory correction end or can one go on forever? With business what it is now, how can this glut still be there? I realize that there are special situations(eg fiber) with explanations but i think most folks have gotten lean and mean at every level and the first sign of robust business will have wonderful bottom line results. Go to the store--no winter goods left and so on.

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (60892)	2/22/2002 1:22:01 PM
From: StanX Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Your posted, Describing this as a soft landing is sort of a scary thought. Ask one of my many friend that was laid off and have yet to find a job, how soft this feels? Stan

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (60892)	2/22/2002 1:51:26 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

re: Maybe Alan Greenspan really is a genius? Certainly, without the Fed's aggressive action, we would have seen the complete shutdown of the capital markets in late 2000. In the 1800s, before there was a Fed, with completely unregulated markets, this is what happened, repeatedly. With the railroad buildout, there were repeated booms and busts. In boom times, capital was available to build parallel rail lines out to empty spots on the prairie. In bust times, no one could get any capital for anything. Even the best-run companies, run by honest people, would run out of cash with lines 90% complete. IMO, the Fed has done little to decrease the excesses of the Bubble. By contrast, they have aggressively lowered rates and increased liquidity, to avoid a (worse) downturn. The problem with this is, it builds up Moral Hazard (rescuing decision-makers when they lose their gambles). I suppose you could argue that we'll see the Bubble deflated in steps, like a balloon with a tiny intermittent pinhole in it. But there is no historical precedent for that. The robust historical pattern, is that BigBooms (rapid buildouts financed with debt) always lead to BigBusts. And the conditions that have existed at the bottom of those BigBusts, has not happened yet. Which is why I think most of the talk about 10/01 being THE Bottom, is wishful thinking.