<html> Wrong (likely).  The US can pawn (part of, it can't escape all the effects) it off on its ever-pliant dependencies, protectorates and other subalterns abroad. What's an empire for, if not to exercise the prerogatives thereof.  Think seigniorial rents, etc.  It's this that give the "soft landing" talk the substance of reality. -Brad Mayer Oakland, CA At 09:46 PM 1/4/01 +0000, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite cite><blockquote type=cite cite><blockquote type=cite cite>[The FT's Lex column states:] Investors have every cause for short-term celebration, and shares duly soared on the news. But in the longer term, Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman, may not be doing anyone a favour. Working off the excesses of an overvalued stock market is a painful but necessary process - and one that arguably still had some way to run in the case of technology stocks. By showing investors he will rescue them come what may, he is encouraging excessive risk-taking and the formation of future bubbles. Investors should ask themselves whether in fostering such a classic moral hazard the Fed is really being their friend.</blockquote> Sadomonetarism lives! Doug</blockquote> Isn't the larger point that big money has boxed itself in and has no good alternatives at this point?  U.S. capitalists have lived in a dream world from Reagan through Clinton and now face the curse of answered prayers.  They wanted to recreate the laisser-faire paradise of a century ago and were remarkably successful, virtually guaranteeing a resurgence of the manic-depressive, boom-bust intensity of classic capitalism, guaranteeing agony and waste all around. Carl _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com/" eudora="autourl">http://explorer.msn.com</a> </blockquote></html>