On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Patrick Bond wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It looks like the JSE index quadrupled in the year ending at that
July peak. So if the 17% decline matters, doesn't the 300% increase
matter almost twenty times more? Or does it only matter on the
downside?
The bubble attracted vast amounts of pension, insurance, banking and
footloose foreign portfolio capital which a decent finance minister
would
have captured and redirected to productive activity.
Of course the capital wouldn't have flowed in had there been such a
finance minister.
But what I really stumbled over was the implication that there was
something bad about a 17% decline, presented without the context of a
300% run-up. Someone unschooled in these things might conclude from
that that you were either relentlessly and one-dimensionally
pessimistic, or worried about what such a decline might fortell, or -
worse - in favor of policies that push stock prices higher.
Doug
