"Jim -" wrote in message
t...


Silence...as expected.


Did you think there were hordes of people at computers, awaiting your
mindless drivel, anxious to respond?

Here's your answer: Some things would've been the same, and some would've
been different. One thing for su With Gore, we'd have a president who
appealed to peoples' minds instead of their rectums, one who could pronounce
words with more than 3 syllables or words with trickly letter combinations.
We'd have a president who, while delivering speeches containing somber news,
wouldn't be smiling like someone who'd swallowed a handful of quaaludes.
But, you wouldn't know the difference.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

even though it was dying before the election and AGores actions
started a huge slide. Investors do not like uncertainty.

You must've been three sheets to the wind when you wrote this. It's hard to
believe you're the same person who sometimes offer lucid, accurate boating
advice.

"The market" reacts to absolutely EVERYTHING. It burps when a judge says the
word "Microsoft", when the president is rumored to be making some sort of
announcement, and when almost any stock sector leader, like G.E., announces
earnings, even if the announcement is positive, but not positive enough.

The market's reactions are barely connected to the state of the economy, or
anything else for that matter. The immediate index changes you hear about
are largely the result of huge trades by institutional investors, like
mutual funds & pension managers. In other words, little conference rooms
containing a handful of so-called "experts", who make correct or incorrect
decisions about as often as you or I.

Al Gore.....sheeeeit. Next, you're gonna say the market tanked because the
TV show "Spongebob Squarepants" was finally cancelled.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

...The only thing I though he had going for him was a higher IQ than
Bush.

Based on what? GWB is a terrible public speaker who has a substantially
better academic success record than AG, and now has added to his already
fairly lengthy record as a chief executive -- a resume area wherein AG's
record is embarrassingly bare. AG is a comfortable extemporaneous speaker
who addresses all audiences as if they were second-grade half-wits. All
he's ever done is check the polls and change his clothes. I don't think
we'll run into either one at the next Mensa meeting, but I'd bet that W
would be closer to the door.

JG

Perhaps you can explain a few of the following quotes from your leader.

"Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland,
we understand how unfair the death penalty is."-Omaha, Neb., Feb. 28, 2001


"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a
lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important
bridge between church and state."-Question and answer session with the
press, Jan. 29, 2001

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because
it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."-Austin, Texas, Dec.
20, 2000

And, the real doozy:
"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the
difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute
them."-Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

(What country does he think he's living in?)

Totally sober! The discord that the AGore suits inspired was greasing the
skids for an already tanking economy. The market does react to all news,
but some events cause a much greater influence. And "The Florida Election
Debacle" really threw the grease to the ways. (boating reference at least).
Bill

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

even though it was dying before the election and AGores actions
started a huge slide. Investors do not like uncertainty.

You must've been three sheets to the wind when you wrote this. It's hard
to
believe you're the same person who sometimes offer lucid, accurate boating
advice.

"The market" reacts to absolutely EVERYTHING. It burps when a judge says
the
word "Microsoft", when the president is rumored to be making some sort of
announcement, and when almost any stock sector leader, like G.E.,
announces
earnings, even if the announcement is positive, but not positive enough.

The market's reactions are barely connected to the state of the economy,
or
anything else for that matter. The immediate index changes you hear about
are largely the result of huge trades by institutional investors, like
mutual funds & pension managers. In other words, little conference rooms
containing a handful of so-called "experts", who make correct or incorrect
decisions about as often as you or I.

Al Gore.....sheeeeit. Next, you're gonna say the market tanked because the
TV show "Spongebob Squarepants" was finally cancelled.

Other than me using the wrong word, meant "requirments". I was correct. I
admit the rate is not set by the Federal Reserve system, but the requirments
are.
Bill

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

(why, Oh WHY do I do this...?)

No one in the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for us.
A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for $300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

May I suggest you learn at least some smattering of how the Federal
Reserve
operates? And what power(s) the Chairman (currently Alan Greenspan) has?

Hint: Interest rates on margin accounts ain't on the list.

Second suggestion (oh, no...it's free--but thanks for offering): Look at
the
performance of the major indexes (the Dow would be as good as any) and
overlay
its performance with events of the time.

For instance: A couple of the high-water marks set by the Dow Jones
Industrial
Average were set on January 14, 2000 (the Index hit 11,722). What was
going on
then? March, 2000: Largest dollar gain in history (up 4.93%). How about
the
date the DJIA first dipped below the 10,000 benchmark? March 14, 2001.

Do these figures relate in any way to the uncertainties and maneuverings
of the
election? If so, how?

Please be sure to show your work.

Joe Parsons

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:45:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

Other than me using the wrong word, meant "requirments". I was correct.
I
admit the rate is not set by the Federal Reserve system, but the
requirments
are.

Then I'm somewhat puzzled by what you said.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, in rec.boats you wrote:

The election debacle upset the market greatly. Where AL tried to get
the
rules changed after election and all the law suits, put a huge, make
that a
HUGE, amount of uncertainty and turmoil in to the markets. Accelerated
the
slide that was already starting. Big grease on the skids. No one in
the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for
us. A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for $300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly
the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

You say that the rate on margin accounts is set by the Federal Reserve
System.
How do they do this?

And your statement about the "election debacle" (and I think you may have
unintentionally used the perfect word for what happened) "accelerated the
slide"
in the market--how do you come to that conclusion?

And with respect to "Greenspan's policies" relating to the overheated
market
(actually, his term was "irrational exuberance") what powers and/or
authority
does he have that might have avoided the problems you say his policies
created?

Joe Parsons


Bill

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

(why, Oh WHY do I do this...?)

No one in the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for
us.
A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for
$300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly
the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

May I suggest you learn at least some smattering of how the Federal
Reserve
operates? And what power(s) the Chairman (currently Alan Greenspan)
has?

Hint: Interest rates on margin accounts ain't on the list.

Second suggestion (oh, no...it's free--but thanks for offering): Look
at
the
performance of the major indexes (the Dow would be as good as any) and
overlay
its performance with events of the time.

For instance: A couple of the high-water marks set by the Dow Jones
Industrial
Average were set on January 14, 2000 (the Index hit 11,722). What was
going on
then? March, 2000: Largest dollar gain in history (up 4.93%). How
about
the
date the DJIA first dipped below the 10,000 benchmark? March 14, 2001.

Do these figures relate in any way to the uncertainties and
maneuverings
of the
election? If so, how?

Please be sure to show your work.

Joe Parsons




The Federal Reserve has the ability to set margin requirements under it's
rules. How much margin is required. Forget which rules, but do a search on
Margin Requirements and Federal Reserve. He should have raised the margin
to 50 or even 90% of the purchase. Would have stopped the Day Trader /
gambler operations. I think the Requirements were 10%, which says you have
to put up 10% of the purchase price. His term was "irrational exuberance"
but was meaning an overheated / near out of control market.
The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake. This
meant real turmoil in the markets. Markets that were already falling. I
worked for a semiconductor company at the time and we were seeing lots of
order cancellations before the election from the Cisco's, etc. So you have
extreme uncertainty and falling orders, Stage for a real freefall, before
someone can get in and set policies. And the greasing the skids (ways)
comment was exactly what I meant.
Bill

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:59:49 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

[snip]

The Federal Reserve has the ability to set margin requirements under it's
rules. How much margin is required. Forget which rules, but do a search on
Margin Requirements and Federal Reserve. He should have raised the margin
to 50 or even 90% of the purchase.

The number has been 50% since (IIANM) 1974.

What evidence do you have to show that margined trading has had anything to do
with the decline in stock prices?

In any case, whatever the Federal Reserve might have done with respect to margin
requirements is getting away from your earlier assertion: that "The election
debacle upset the market greatly." I'd still be interested in seeing the
performance of the DJIA on the dates you seem to be claiming that Al Gore "upset
the market," and that he "accelerated the slide that was already starting."

Would have stopped the Day Trader /
gambler operations. I think the Requirements were 10%, which says you have
to put up 10% of the purchase price.

Uh, no--unless there's some huge loophole I've never been made aware of.

His term was "irrational exuberance"
but was meaning an overheated / near out of control market.

I'd like to suggest that what he meant[1] was that the price of many
stocks--especially in the high-tech sector--was out of the realm of what made
economic sense. P/E ratios were all out of proportion on many of these stocks.
I think a better characterization of what he meant was that certain sectors of
the market were overbought. "Overbought" doesn't mean "out of control;" it may
simply mean "overdue for a correction."

But how is it that this correction--which you've just said could have been
avoided had Mr. Greenspan acted in the "correct" way--is attributable to Mr.
Gore's actions in the 2000 election? It seems to me that you've just laid the
blame in Reagan-appointed lap of Alan Greenspan.

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake. This
meant real turmoil in the markets. Markets that were already falling. I
worked for a semiconductor company at the time and we were seeing lots of
order cancellations before the election from the Cisco's, etc. So you have
extreme uncertainty and falling orders,

But how is the correction in the high-tech sector attributable to Al Gore? I
think you still have to show that the market *was* "on the skids around the time
of the contested election. What were the closing figures during those days?

Stage for a real freefall, before
someone can get in and set policies.

So who would set these "policies?" What powers would they exercise to set them?
What would the effect have been? How do you define "freefall?"

So many questions, so little time...

Joe Parsons

And the greasing the skids (ways)
comment was exactly what I meant.

[1] It's important to keep a couple of things in mind with respect to Mr.
Greenspan: first, the things he says can and do move the markets. Second, he
purposely speaks in highly obtuse, ambiguous terms, which someone once named
"Greenspeak."

"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake. This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake.
This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-




Most have a non-controversial turnover of power. The next administration is
known with enough time for the market to absorb the news.
Bill

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:21:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"-rick-" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake.
This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-




Most have a non-controversial turnover of power. The next administration is
known with enough time for the market to absorb the news.

What? "Known?"

Joe Parsons