> | > Until either of those things change (and perhaps both), I don't
> | > see a significant change in the direction of this market.
> |
> | neither do i; but i know there's a difference between what i
> | see and what is. a pre-reaganite distinction, maybe.
>
> Boy, do you ramble! First you say you don't see my opinion in my
> needling of Doug, then when I repeat it you make fun of it by saying
> that it's "just" my opinion. Hot damn, that's good stuff. Oh,
> plus you throw in some pithy reference -- twice -- to a president
> I never voted for or supported like you think you have your finger
> on the pulse of Where I'm Coming From just to perhaps try to get
> my goat; maybe that's how you old farts think you can get us "young"
> farts' goat: by making some vague unsupportable reference to Regan.
i'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first bit, though i will point out that your response to my first remark omit- ted the core of what i was saying. i'll repeat it, for your convenience: your propensity to invoke contingent events as proof that your ideology is Right, and to do so with a very specific kind of valedictory tone, is distinctly reaganite. it has little to do with who you voted for and much to do with a discursive style unknown prior to the rise of a shrill neoconservatism bent on demonstrating its rectitude with bor- ing regularity.
a lot of energy seems to go into painting doug as a crypto- bear, which i find strange. i'm pretty certain he sees the current situation as intensely distorted, but he definitely goes out of his way to avoid 'chicken little' predictions. but all that doesn't really matter, does it, because once you supply the crypto part, then one can leap on occasional observations that reveal what he 'really' thinks.
> Woo-whee, I used to think you could flame with the best of 'em,
> but maybe you're just getting, um, old.
>
> Super weak.
i put about as much energy into it as any given person rates.
you can argue that a handful of 'slick' technical policies have negated forces that might lead to a 'correction,' but i think that kind of argument is intensely naive. it fails to address hard-to-quantify cultural factors, which in the long run are much more powerful than social engineering by means of tax policies. 'imo,' natch.
i'm real bullish on the cultural front.
cheers, t