"Joe" wrote in message

What if your investments were in Clean up type companies, radation
detection companys, body bag mfgrs, coffin mfgrs, construction,
lumber, bricks, glass ect.

And who's going to pay for all this cleanup, etc.? With the rest of the
stock market in ruin and the economy crashing through the floor, the gummint
isn't going to have enough money for toilet paper in the congressional rest
rooms. When people are out of work, the federal coffers get pretty bare in
record time. And what will happen when the relatives of victims want
federal reparations for their losses, as did those of 9/11? Who will fund
that?


I think you underestimate the American people Max. You need to drive
across country and look at the almost unlimited supply of resources.

Our prime resource is people, and many of them will be out of work.

If Americans all got involved and cared like they did in WWII this
great nation can overcome anything.

Don't hold your breath. Even the vitriol following 9/11 was relatively
short-lived. The level of 'patriotism' seen in the Forties was virtually
unprecendented, and doubtfully repeated. The media have seen to that.


Like that jap said "I fear all we have done is awaken an angry giant"

What will we do that we aren't doing now? Nuke the entire Middle East, less
Israel, of course?


We are on the terrorist's like chickens on a june bug. They are very
busy trying not to get killed right now. Lets keep up the pressure.

That's all we can do. We can't find them. We can't identify the ones we
have. We have some incarcerated that aren't terrorists. But that pressure
costs huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. And to increase the pressure, our
rights as US citizens will undoubtedly be injured, if not curtailed. Is it
worth it?

It's easy to get sucker punched, its stupid to get sucker punched
twice.

If al Qaeda were intelligent, they'd allow the US to adopt a false sense of
security by curtailing any and all terrorist activity against us. After
returning to our former sense of complacency, they'd strike. Thankfully
they don't appear to be that bright. Or are they?

Max

OzOne wrote in message

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 05:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Oh he'll be well gone by then.
I'm talking at least another 2 presidents before it's calm again.

What makes you think the next two presidents will behave/perform any
differently than this one? You have far more optimism than I. Must have
something to do with hanging by your feet with all that blood rushing to
your head.

Max

One can only hope.
First ya gotta find one without a score to settle.

Impossible. They all have scores to settle. Politics is a vicious game,
enemies made, paybacks planned.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

"DSK" wrote.
Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more?


Maxprop wrote:
Probably because we don't have a tangible enemy, as we did in WWII.

No. Dollars don't care about ideology.

Have you ever heard of the term "velocity" referring to money &
economics? It may or may not be the real reason, but the easiest way to
explain the current situation (huge increase in gov't spending, no or
only very small increase in aggregate demand or the overall economy) is
that the velocity of the money spent is not high enough to generate more
dollars being spent.

You seem to imply that money is an autonomous medium, moving irrespective of
the whims and wishes of the humans that handle it. Interesting.


I would explain this by saying that the people reaping these huge war
profits are not spending the money as they rake it in. Probably sending
it overseas.

Oh, so it's not autonomous. Okay, your point immediately above may be
correct. Overseas investment is increasing daily. Nothing new, really, but
at least it should be reflected in the world economic picture. But it
ain't, at least not currently w/r/t the Iraq war.

... Note how the
stock market bumped when the statue of Saddam was torn down. Also note
how
it has fluctuated every time bad news from the Iraqi front airs.

The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy.

In theoretical economic parlance, yes. But the activity of the markets
(global, not just the US) have a huge impact upon the decisions and actions
of those who control vast amounts of money. The markets aren't strictly
followers, rather they are part of a larger symbiotic relationship, replete
with feedback loops.

For example, in
1929 we had an ongoing recession that was not reflected in the stock
market... instead the stock market ballooned even more... for a while...
The dot-com bust was the same. It made no sense whatever to place a huge
valuation on companies with no profits and no productivity. And guess
what, eventually the stock market followed!

Suggested reading:
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books...1929crash.html

It's been a while since my college econ, but I do recall some of the
features of the '29 crash.

Max

OzOne wrote

and....she didn't pay for it....?

do you?

I'm Married...Of course I pay.

Oh. So you're jealous.

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

Sure, if Angelo is straight.

Who knows.

Ganz?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:35:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

And who's going to pay for all this cleanup, etc.? With the rest of the
stock market in ruin and the economy crashing through the floor,


What country do you live in?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 05:08:07 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?

not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Um, would you mind if I had one last dinner at Angelo's first?

Is the food better than Hooters?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 05:10:00 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:

Boston, Baltimore? oops, same city.

I'd trade 'em both for Paris, but ya gotta remove the Frenchies first.

Paris sucks. If you want a Europeeing city, go with Munich. The food
and beer is better.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:47:27 -0400, DSK wrote
this crap:

Naw, she's too skinny. Besides I am happily married.

Nobody is happily married.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Maxprop wrote:
You seem to imply that money is an autonomous medium, moving irrespective of
the whims and wishes of the humans that handle it. Interesting.

Not at all. Just referring to an economic concept. Money doesn't do
anything by itself, obviously. Equally obvious is that not everybody
does the same thing with their money: some spend it one place, some
spend it another, some save more, some save less.

What I am saying is that with the tremendous increase in U.S. gov't
spending, and the continued economic doldrums, it looks like the people
who received that money did not go out and spend it in ways that help
the U.S. economy.

As an aside, it seems likely to me that much of the money handed out for
the Iraq war is now being spent by overseas corporate types... it will
get back to us, eventually, but in the meantime it has done us little
(if any) good... economically and other ways...


The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy.


In theoretical economic parlance, yes. But the activity of the markets
(global, not just the US) have a huge impact upon the decisions and actions
of those who control vast amounts of money. The markets aren't strictly
followers, rather they are part of a larger symbiotic relationship, replete
with feedback loops.

Unfortunately the feedback loop is mostly hysteresis.

As a market for capital, the stock market is important to the economy.
In any other way, it is parasitic.

DSK