Table On-Topic Summary - 24-Oct-2002
A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 44022 to 44064

Post  44022  by  Decomposed       OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Oct 23, 2002

Post  44023  by  Warstud       Reply
Harmonic misses estimates (HLIT) 1.47 +0.24: Reports Q3 (Sep) loss of $0.22 per share, $0.02 worse than the Multex consensus of ($0.20); revenues fell 35.6% year/year to $37.0 mln vs the $37.7 mln consensus.

Post  44024  by  maniati       OT: roof: Thank very much for the kinds words. I k

Post  44025  by  uponroof       Reply
Confusion in the markets...

Bad news moves shares up, good news down. No rhyme or reason for this unusual behavior which fails to follow conventional wisdom. Is it just a matter of working out the whatever's left of irrational exubberance and the amatuer investing herd? Or is it deeper and something now which has a life of it's own? If so, if it is something growing on it's own, is it beneficial or detrimental?

I have no answers, I'm only wondering aloud.

Roger Arnold referred to this phenomenom as "background noise" and attributes it to prognosticating economists raising unwarranted positive speculation.

Here's another interesting explanation which blames the traders swing to TA investing, disregarding fundamentals:

So, any thoughts on what is going on? IMHO this is not typical of the normal 'churning' process. Too many disconnected moves.

What could it be?

Perhaps it is the early stages of market manipulation manisfestation? Is the disconnect based in gummint intervention? Are we starting to see the results of poor policy decisions which included controlling economic as well as broad market indicators?

I dunno.

Post  44026  by  srudek       ot pmcw,

Post  44027  by  srudek       Reply
uponroof, re TA vs. fundamentals

As I just posted on the Caledonia board, "sckpak, George Soros discusses this ascendency of TA over fundamentals in his book The Crisis of Global Capitalism (excellent, excellent book, btw). He says he has noticed the shift and expects this trend to continue. He cites it as an example of the fact that social systems are reflexive -- the system changes thinking and thinking changes the system in a feedback cycle which is not necessarily equilibrating."

More to your comments, I've noticed how many stock gurus make almost precisely the same calls for short term movements and how when these consensus opinions are reached, they generally come to pass. In his latest "update", Steven Seville actually goes one better. After saying that his opinion is that the market will most likely move up as much as 10% further in the short term, he notes that most bears are expecting the same thing. Therefore, he decides to buy some QQQ put options NOW, rather than wait until everyone is buying them.

I do think "market manipulation" is real but I'm not sure it is of a conspiratorial nature. It is Greenspans job, after all, to guide the economy to as soft a landing as possible; speaking calming words instead of yelling "fire" is one of his more important tools. Also, with TA becoming an increasing part of the trend, we, in effect, start manipulating ourselves.

I sometimes wonder if TA would work in the real estate market; I have my doubts, since I don't know anyone who uses it. I don't know anyone who uses it, probably, because I don't know of a good source of condensed underlying data. There isn't a good source of condensed underlying data because nobody uses it. ;-0

Post  44028  by  spirare       Reply
Gold holdings increased by 25% to 178,911 ounces
Net Liquid Assets grew $275,000 per day = 77% of Operating Cash Flow

By the end of the third quarter, 2002 Goldcorp's cash and short
term investments had increased by $17.1 million to $235.5 million
and the Company remains Debt Free and Unhedged. The Company also
continued to strengthen its balance sheet to reflect the belief
that Gold is Money, by increasing its gold holdings by 25% or
35,316 ounces to a total of 178,911 ounces (5.56 tonnes). The
after tax value of the increase in gold holdings during the third
quarter 2002 was $8.3 million. The after tax value of the
Company's total liquid assets (cash, short term investments and
gold bullion) therefore increased by $25.4 million during the
quarter, representing an increase of $275,000 per day, indicating
that the Company effectively converted 77% of its operating cash
flow into liquid assets after the payment of all operating
expenses, capital and dividends on a post tax basis.!

Goldcorp's gold bullion holdings continued to be increased in two
ways. First, the Company held back from sale 15,326 ounces (9%) of
its quarterly gold production. To date, a total of 78,751 ounces
of gold have been accumulated in this manner. This bullion is
carried on the balance sheet at cost, in accordance with Canadian
GAAP. Second, Goldcorp purchased 19,990 ounces of gold bullion
during the quarter at an average price of $306.25 per ounce
(compared to the gold price of $323.70 per ounce at quarter end).
To date, a total of 100,160 ounces of gold bullion has been
accumulated in this manner. Fluctuations in the mark to market
value of this portion of the gold bullion holdings are accounted
for as unrealized gains or losses and reported quarterly in
accordance with Canadian GAAP. In the first nine months of 2002
Goldcorp increased its gold bullion holdings by 143,850 ounces
representing an amount equal to 31% of total production during
that period.

Goldcorp's gold bullion holdings are greater than the gold
reserves of 39 (or 35%) of the 112 countries which own gold. Its
holdings are greater than the gold reserves of Ireland or of Hong
Kong and Luxembourg combined.

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

Post  44029  by  Nasdaq60       Reply
Thanks Spi, for many years ago, U told me about GG...,aol,calvf&a=v&p=s&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l

it would be about time, that the new generation

of the plastic high-tech IT people, learned a bit

about the new money with the 6000+ history and

how to run a real growth company!

How can we reach them and give them the basic

intelligence about GOLD?

That its something to be invested in and not just to hang

around the neck and the rings, placed in the drawer?

CALVF, go to the MOON

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)

Post  44030  by  lkorrow       OT: maniati, glad it's over. eom.

Post  44031  by  jeffbas       Reply
"without all these fools jumping in at the end of the party, the Dow would have never made it past 5000, imo and the Nasdaq would have topped somewhere below 1000."

srudek, that is an interesting speculation. Of course, the answer is unknowable, although I don't think so. I believe that there were three main stock market (supply/demand) factors and one economic factor leading up to the early 2000 top:

-The introduction of 401-K's in the workplace, making it much easier to save around $10,000 a year through automatic payroll deduction (versus the prior voluntary $2,000 IRA contribution, with income limits). Much of this money went into the market, sopping up supply.

-The shift by corporations away from defined benefit pension plans after 401-K's were introduced, substituting Company 401-K contributions for pension plan contributions. Many pension plans had been funded through insurance companies, which historically had only a few percent of assets in the stock market, and no particular bias toward or expertise in stock investing. Of course, the money going into the 401-K's went mostly into the stock market.

-A sustained economic expansion, which enabled many cyclical companies to put attractive records over many years on the board - and get valuation levels totally unwarranted by their inherent cyclical risks. The Electronic Contract Manufacturing (ECM) industry is just one example. One part of this extended expansion was Y2K spending, which forced an unsustainable level of spending into the end of the 1990's. Another was the huge amount of abnormal spending financed by Wall Street fund raising.

-The introduction of very inexpensive and efficient Internet trading of stocks, which induced MANY folks to get into the market and think they were geniuses. Since these were mostly momentum players, who had only minor knowledge of the companies, the money they added generally went in the direction of the market, which was up.

I think the first three factors were necessary to create the supply/demand (for stocks) and economic environment for a blowoff in the market. They may or may not also have been sufficient to get above the levels you mentioned, and the last factor may have been needed as well.

What is interesting to me is that we still have the first two factors in effect, unless folks have made major changes in their asset allocations. I think this is significantly different from past market cycles, where individual investing was the main driving force and secular bull markets tended to be a generation in time apart - largely because it took a new generation to replace those who had either lost their money or their interest in stocks. For this reason, I suspect that the next secular bull market will not take a decade or more from 2000 to start. In particular, I think the next secular bull market in technology stocks will start as soon as fundamentals have clearly stabilized - for precisely the reason that the amount of new money available for tech stock investment from 401-k's and the like has not dropped the 90-99%% that most prices have - demand for stocks will exceed supply on a sustained basis as soon as the economic risks have declined.

(A minor footnote on this forecast is that most tech stocks do not face the inadequate pension contribution hit to earnings that most other industries face, giving them a relative advantage here.)

Post  44032  by  jeffbas       Reply
maniati, I will be very interested to see your remarks on inflation, as I keep having a nagging suspicion that that is the longer term issue I should worry about. Having enough safe fixed income investments and cash flow takes care of deflation, but is no good if you have rip-roaring inflation.

Post  44033  by  pmcw       Reply
If you bought some LSI in the $4's and you want to hedge your bets, you might take a look at April 03 calls. (Please note that all prices were taken when LSI was trading at $6.)

If you want to simply delay taxes and get a little boost, look at $2.5's. Nearly a sure thing you'll lose your shares, but you'll get the intrinsic value (the difference between the trading price and $2.50) now plus two to four bits additional. Taxes will be due in 2003. If you want just a mild hedge (leave some chance that if the market returns to recent lows that you'll get to keep your shares) take a look at the $5's. You'll reduce your cost by a couple of bucks or so (maybe down to $2) and be nearly assured of a 150% gain inside of six months. If you want to simply reduce the cost basis, but feel you also want a bit more in the end, look at the $7.5's. You'll drive your cost down by over a buck and still, if they are exercised, get an extra $1.50 for the stock over the current price. The implication is the cost will be driven down to around $3 and the gain will again be 150% if exercised. Of course, the higher the strike price the more likely you are to "get" to keep the shares.

With the $5's and $7.5's you'll also have the "option" of pushing the deal and taking a short term loss that will be offset by a long term gain that is higher at a later date.

Regards, pmcw

Post  44034  by  lkorrow       Reply
Some opinions on cable.

Battered cable group seeks catalyst 2002-10-24

Accounting scandals and balance-sheet issues have pushed cable stocks to bargain levels, but buyers remain sidelined.

by Thomas J. Ryan

With the likes of Worldcom and Adelphi as peers, cable stocks are clearly caught in a case of guilt by association.

Since the start of the year, investors have fled the cable sector as it wallowed in accounting scandals, fraud allegations, high debt levels, and unfashionably complex balance sheets. Of course, the whole sordid drama played out against the backdrop of a souring economic environment.

The latest embarrassment came on Oct. 23, when Charter (CHTR) chief operating officer went on paid leave in connection with a federal probe into the company's accounting.

The group has been hammered this year. Comcast Corp. (CMCSK) is down 40 percent; Cox Communications (COX), 73 percent; Cablevision Systems Corp. (CVC), 37 percent; Insight Communications (ICCI), 82 percent; Mediacom Communications (MCCC), 73 percent; and Charter Communications, 90 percent.

However, many analysts sniff values amid the ruins. Although Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband, which is being merged into Comcast, are showing weakness in basic-cable subscriptions, analysts believe fundamentals remain solid for the rest.

Comcast Communications, the market leader, had an average rating of 1.86 from the 11 analysts who cover the stock, according to the latest screening by Multex Investor (see chart below). Cox Communications had an average rating of 1.88; Mediacom Communications, 1.81; Cablevision, 2.29; Insight Communications, 2.36; and Charter Communications, 2.64.

What's missing is a clear catalyst to get investors looking at the volatile sector again. Merrill Lynch's Jessica Reif Cohen says general market malaise, leveraged balance sheets, complex structures and, more recently, a renewed fear of satellite competition brought by a recent pre-announcement by Charter Communications will continue to weigh on the sector.

However, she said a near-term potential catalyst for the group could be the close of the AT&T-Comcast merger, anticipated in early to mid-November. Another catalyst could be the Time Warner Cable IPO, expected in 6 to 9 months. She has a "buy" on Cox and Comcast. "They have excellent management teams and operate [in] desirable demographic areas," Cohen says.

Stifel, Nicolaus & C, who has "strong buys" on Cox, Comcast, and Charter, believes the arrival of cash-flow generation in late 2003 will stabilize the stocks and create a healthy environment for cable stocks in 2004. With improved valuations, he expects operators will once again look to consolidate.

He sees some "mini-catalysts" over the next year, such as continued operational execution, a lack of accounting scandals, and visible improvement in cable digital product, though he admits that the stocks may be in limbo in the short term.

"Unfortunately, there is no way to guess when sentiment might change and drive cable stocks before the free cash flow in late 2003 looks assured for the group, and therefore we recommend building cable equity positions now and on any further dips," he says or writes.

He likes Cox because it was the first MSO (Multiple System Owner) to give 2003 guidance, projecting full-year 2003 free-cash-flow positive and has a strong balance sheet. He believes Comcast's merger with AT&T Broadband "will create muscle of unprecedented scale and scope." He recommends Charter because of its backing by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and its advanced systems and services.

Another catalyst for the cable group could come this week by leading trade organizations for the cable industry to release guidelines that aim at greater consistency across the industry with respect to key industry issues such as subscriber counting and capital spending.

RBC Capital Market's David Lee Smith says each company currently has a slightly different style of reporting its quarterly figures, and he believes "increased clarity and consistency in operating metrics should be a positive for restoring investor confidence in the sector."

Smith notes that on a valuation basis, the stocks are still trading below the normal historical ranges on both a cable EBITDA and per-subscriber valuation. He has "buys" on both Comcast and Cox, citing "lower leverage ratios, superior management teams, and execution ability."

A step back for the industry came when Charter Communications on Oct. 1 indicated that continued basic-subscriber losses would cause it to fall short of the low end of its 3Q EBITDA guidance. Banc of America's Douglas S. Shapiro, who downgraded Charter to "market performer" from "buy," says Charter's problems are company-specific, including less upgraded systems than competitors and too-aggressive pricing.

Nonetheless, Shapiro is also generally upbeat on the sector, with "strong buys" on Comcast and Mediacom; and "buys" on Cablevision, Insight Communications, and Cox. He believes the stocks are "cheap under extremely conservative assumptions," though he also awaits a clear catalyst.

"With investors wary of long-duration stocks and leverage, the catalyst for the sector is elusive," says Shapiro.

Companies mentioned in this article:
Cablevision Systems Corp. (CVC)
Charter Communications (CHTR)
Comcast Corp. (CMCSK)
Cox Communications (COX)
Insight Communications (ICCI)
Mediacom Communications (MCCC)

Post  44035  by  danking_70       OT: The Iranian Comedy Hour
Post  44036  by  tinljhtkh       OT: So, 13 shootings and 10 deaths later,

Post  44037  by  lkorrow       Reply
New HLIT phenomenon? Up 4.7% today on bad news? Thought there might be a buying opportunity today!

Post  44038  by  pmcw       OT: Hi zyrilia. ;o) Regards, pmcw

Post  44039  by  weevil       Reply
LU..approaching a 1/2. eom

Post  44040  by  pmcw       Reply
sr, Thank you for thinking enough of me to offer a helpful comment. Perhaps you are right. However, it really torques me when those who I feel know better appear to use their podium in an effort to deceive. I think you might have an equal challenge biting your tongue if you were constantly exposed to credible people making gross errors on a topic you know well that might mislead others. Please note that my intent was never to assail your integrity - I know you were just posting what you felt to be credible.

I quickly ran some rough numbers using real S&P500 data and came up with the following results (not adjusted for inflation):

My detailed monthly data starts in 1965 (I have annual data going back to 1926) so I decided to take a look at the following situations from 1965 through the end of 1982.

I reviewed the results of investing all at one time in 1965, investing equal amounts each year and investing equal amounts each month. I did not give the regular investors the advantage of the interest they would have earned on the money they set aside for future investments. Obviously, this would skew the results significantly in their favor.

I divided each of the investor categories into three subgroups. The first group invested on the first of the period, the second invested at the period high and the third at the period low.

Obviously, the worst results were from the investor who put all their money into the market at the high of 1965. They ended up with "only" a 218.5% gain and barely overcame inflation. The best was from the investor that grabbed the low each month and ended up with a 356% gain. Again, the regular investors didn't get the advantage of the interest they would have earned in cash accounts which would have vaulted them forward by at least another 100% or so. This implies to me that the regular investor would have at least doubled their money net after inflation during this long bear market.

Regards, pmcw

Post  44041  by  Decomposed       ot: pmcw,

Post  44042  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Roof, my best guess for the short term (to Dec 31) is the markets will move higher. I think one of your posts have the S&P going to 990 and the DJIA to 9300. I agree. IMO, this market is looking for an excuse to go higher. Why? I have no idea other than market momentum seems to be upward. I think once we get through this month with whatever tax selling from mutual funds and the election we'll move higher. WRT the election of the three things that can happen 2 are good. Option 1 is the Republicans take control of both houses and we go to 990. Option 2, we stay as is with the Dems in the Senate and Rep. in the House. Option 3 the Dems take both houses. Of the 3, 1 and 2 are most likely at this time. If the market gets a sense of option 3 it will drop. But I don't think that is likely. My sense is option 2 but I am leaning to option 1. I also think we could get a small bounce if the Fed signals they may cut rates. I now do not think they will, but one can always hope. They may hold their fire because of Iraq.

Iraq, imo, we will not be in Iraq until January. GW will not want to hurt the Christmas shopping season. It would just affect the economy too much. The one caveat to that is if they think they can take this guy out in a few weeks. Then we go in by November and it's over by Thanksgiving. Then we'll get a huge rally. This is a possible scenario. I also think the R's will get a bump from the arrests last night. It's a HUGE relief to Americans that our law enforcement agencies got these ########. It will inject some much needed confidence. Remember this is Muellers FBI now, not Freeh's. So I think on balance it is a net plus for the R's. The down side is 10 people are dead. But at least they ended the nightmare.

As for the economy hey, the jury's still out. I can't answer yet. Things are still depressed in my industry. I will see what happens in November. Regards, Pace.

Post  44043  by  lkorrow       Reply
weevil, there are mysterious forces at work today. LU revenue down 23% from last quarter and down 50% from last year. Result? Stock's up 28%. Similar HLIT.

Maybe the big guys are just jumping back in across the board. I wonder . . .

Post  44044  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, cnbc said most fund selling is over. They think funds may start buying. Curious, do you resell and/or OEM?

Post  44045  by  lkorrow       Reply
Microsoft foray into smartphones. Appears they're missing this year's Christmas/Holiday season. . . .

Microsoft's On The Phone
Victoria Murphy

NEW YORK - Now the wireless industry has its $36 billion question.

Today U.K. carrier Orange will announce the launch of a mobile phone that runs on a variant of the Windows operating system manufactured by Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT). It is the software giant's first step into the relatively uncharted market for "smartphones"--the complex gadgets that allow users not only to chat, but also send and receive e-mails and digital photos, store detailed contact lists, track appointments and, in a more far-fetched sounding scenario, watch movies.

The new, new phone: Orange SPV

The move has been long anticipated. Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates pointed to a prototype at an industry conference in Geneva back in 1999. But that does not mean anyone is ready for the likely competition. Most phone makers are aching from a downturn in their traditional business in digital phones, and smartphones have been slow to come to market.

Microsoft, used to capturing a dominant share in software markets, sees opportunity--not to mention urgency. Sales of Windows have grown 15% a year since 2000 and its Office suite has stagnated at 2%. Microsoft has $36 billion in cash and a mandate from the top to grow in new areas. Even though smartphones will likely remain a niche product, compromising perhaps 10% of the total mobile-phone sales volume, total revenue from hardware and software is estimated to reach $30 billion by 2006, according research firm IDC.

The release of the Windows-based phone, dubbed the Orange SPV, sets the stage for a clash of the giants in the wireless platform space. Leading handset manufacturers are loathe to totally give up their role in software development, fearing that Microsoft's entry into the smartphone sector might doom them to the plight of PC makers, selling commodity hardware products with narrow profit margins.

Already Nokia (nyse: NOK), Motorola (nyse: MOT), Siemens AG (nyse: SI), Samsung and Sony Ericsson, which in total made up 72% of handsets shipped last year, have joined forces to counter Microsoft's long-anticipated entry into their industry with investments in Symbian, a rival London-based wireless platform developer.

In the first half of this year, Symbian sold 250,000 smartphones, getting $5 in license fees per unit mainly through Finnish carrier Nokia. According to Symbian's head of communications, Peter Bancroft, 14 products on his firm's platform are due out within the next 18 months from eight different manufacturers.

Of the makers, Nokia presents the greatest challenge to Microsoft. Last week the company reported earnings of $598 million. The rest of the industry, by contrast, has struggled recently and downsized through significant layoffs.

In the past four years, Microsoft has poured more than $250 million worth of R&D into its mobile devices unit, which includes the PDA that competes with Palm (nasdaq: PALM) and Handspring (nasdaq: HAND) products, the Pocket PC. That's an expense second only to the unprofitable game console XBox.

The Orange SPV, though pricey at roughly $260 per unit, has appealing features like a high-resolution color screen and a toggle for easy navigation. Users can synchronize phones with data from Windows-based PCs, such as contact lists and appointments stored in Microsoft's e-mail and date book application, Outlook. This could be a draw for Outlook's 300 million users worldwide.

Seemingly frozen out by the top handset makers, Microsoft is pulling an end run around the industry, striking deals with general hardware makers like High Tech Computer, Compal and Sendo to build phones that run on its platform.

The key is getting carriers on board to sell its smartphones and, in some cases, subsidize the high costs of the handsets. Carriers abroad have done this in the hopes of hooking customers into data transactions that increase airtime usage.

So far, AT&T Wireless (nyse: AWE) has committed to Microsoft's platform and expects to begin selling the devices in the U.S. in the first half of next year. Other U.S. carriers, including Verizon (nyse: VZ) and Cingular, have signed on just as partners, with no specific products or launch times slated.

Post  44046  by  lkorrow       Reply
Seems like odd timing by JPM with the upcoming AT&T Broadband spinoff. Need the cash?

J.P. Morgan Unit Registers A Maximum Of 11.3M AT&T Shares
Thursday October 24, 12:38 pm ET

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- A unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. filed to sell a maximum of 11.3 million shares of AT&T Corp.'s common stock, according to a Form 144 released Thursday by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The J.P. Morgan unit listed Oct. 14 as the approximate date of sale for the shares, which it valued at $133.8 million.

The filing listed J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. as the broker.

Shares of AT&T, New York, recently traded at $13.38, down 2 cents.

A Form 144 indicates an intention to sell restricted stock, but it isn't a commitment to do so.

Post  44047  by  maniati       OT: Tin: Is that the lesson you take away from thi
Post  44048  by  lkorrow       OT: Iraq's throwing international journalists out

Post  44049  by  rdmill       Reply
Dear Pmcw--Re: LSI options. The Jan. '04 10 can be sold for 1.10 wjhich is a 19% gain upfront and allows the stock to appreciate some 70% if called. It is also a long-term taxable event. Seems to be a good bullish move if onee thinks the stock is in sustainable uptrend. rdmill

Post  44050  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Linda, what's oem and eom stand for? Than I'll answer. Thanks. Pace

Post  44051  by  Decomposed       ot: maniati, You're overreacting. EOM.

Post  44052  by  wilful10       Reply
Indications from news is that the 2 in

custody are the shooters... Stay tuned - we should know pretty soon.


Post  44053  by  Decomposed       ot: And tin, your point, if you had one, is lost
Post  44054  by  Decomposed       ot: And tin, your point, if you had one, is lost

Post  44055  by  wilful10       Reply
Tin - If others are reading something

in your posting that you had not intended - this would be a good time to point this out.

In the interest of clarification,


Post  44056  by  wilful10       Reply
Reports are that the 2 in custody are almost

certainly - the shooters. Their car was set up as a "shooting platform".


Post  44057  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, oops, original equipment manufacturer and end of message. sorry :-)

Post  44058  by  maniati       Reply
Well, there have been a few interesting statements from the Fed in the last couple of days. First, there was the "beige book," then remarks by Greenspan at a Department of Labor/AEI conference, then remarks by Vice Chairman Ferguson at the London Business School.

Beige Book

Greenspan's Comments

Fergusons's Comments

Add to that some comments made by the Fed the other day, and it looks like they are struggling to come to a consensus. A rate cut in November might yet happen. I think they're concerned about retail sales and manufacturing, and were hoping for more from the labor market. In addition, both Greenspan's and Fergusons's comments on labor productivity indicate almost shock - albeit a pleasant one - that growth in labor productivity has remained high even during the downturn. But, one can also see that Greenspan is reluctant to say how long he thinks it will continue. He sounds like he is more hoping than certain about the future of labor productivity.

I realize that this stuff can be pretty dry, but if you're interested in economics, Greenspan's remarks are a good read. By that, I don't exactly mean "riveting." :-) Also, I don't mean that he is right, either. But, what I like about Greenspan's comments is that he spells out his reasoning for you. He lays the whole argument right out there on the table for you to look at. So, you can agree or disagree, but at least you can see how he is putting the pieces together. To me, it's like being back in college studying economics again. And, as I say, you don't have to agree with him, but you get to see how he applies familiar economic principles to the current situation, and I think that is quite illuminating.

Post  44059  by  tinljhtkh       OT: In the interest of clarity:

Post  44060  by  wilful10       Reply
Well Tin - Now we know what you

meant and I am somewhat disappointed. I did'nt know this

[After all that we have seen in the last year or so, we can either regard this as the work of monsters, or begin to realize what creates monsters and begin to do something constructive about creating an environment where monsters feel that they do not to be that way anymore! The people who did this were human beings before they were monsters! Understanding the transition between the two beings is where our best hope of survival lies! The United States military trained this sniper! We need, as a society, to help and demand of them to better select those that they give the skills of monsterhood! ]

was part of your view point. These people made a choice to walk the road of evil. They are to blame for their choice - not the U.S. military,,, nor even our society.


Post  44061  by  pacemakernj       OT: Linda, I am a reseller. Thanks. Pace.
Post  44062  by  ttalknet2       OT: CIA Report on Iraq's WMD Programs October 2002

Post  44063  by  jbennett53       Reply
Decomposed, I do not think Maniati is overreacting. Living with the fear for your loved ones being cut down by a gunman causes great stress. Can you imagine all of the peoples that have to live with this everyday? They also know that there will probably no relief? It would be a true wonder if someway the violence in the world could be lessened.

Post  44064  by  jbennett53       Reply
Decomposed, I do not think Maniati is overreacting. Living with the fear for your loved ones being cut down by a gunman causes great stress. Can you imagine all of the peoples that have to live with this everyday? They also know that there will probably no relief? It would be a true wonder if someway the violence in the world could be lessened.