<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Actually, I suspect that the markets would have reacted positively to <i>whatever</i>
<br>the Fed did. If the rates had not been raised, it would have
been taken as
<br>an indication that the everything is wonderful. The fact that
they did raise
<br>rates (a little) is viewed as an indication the Greeenspan is keeping
things
<br>under control, so again, its copecetic (sic?).
<p>The point is that the conditions driving the stock market to new heights
<br>- whatever they are - have not abated. Anything the Fed says
or does
<br>is likely to be viewed as validation of the upward spiral.
<p>That's the great thing about oracles - you can interpret their pronouncements
<br>anyway that's convenient.
<p><i>Excelsior,</i><i></i>
<p>Barney
<br>
<p>Rob Schaap wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>G'day Pen-pals,
<p>Er, what's going on?
<p>The Dow is up more than 5% for the week for no reason other that interest
<br>rates went up by as much as expected. One inference is that the
'neutral
<br>policy setting' signalled by Greenspan has been taken seriously - that
his
<br>was a hopeless gesture aimed only at an inflation projection all the
more
<br>likely to be pressed upwards by his own professed 'neutrality'.
Well,
<br>maybe the structural problem with the current account ain't as big
a
<br>problem as some might have thought, perhaps record US consumer-debt
and
<br>record low US savings ain't a problem after all. But ain't anybody
out
<br>there asking why, then, Alan 'Hidden Hand' Greenspan upped the rate
in the
<br>first place?</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------
<br>Barnet Wagman
<p>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<br>------------------</html>
