posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:58 PM
I don't know why you think Congress is behind it, anyone with more then a million bucks can manipulate the markets(specially the OTC) fairly easily.
If ya get caught though hehehe. I mostly avoid OTC Pink sheets and the Grey markets but am always willing to put a small speculative bet on the BB
exchange, its been very friendly to me in my 4 and half years of trading. I mostly confine myself to the Nasdaq as its an area I understand the
best(ie Science and Technology).
There is an Economics theory called Creative Destruction
Creative destruction is an expression used in economics, coined by Joseph Schumpeter. It refers to a dynamic process of competition and
monopoly in markets under capitalism. For Schumpeter, the main principle of capitalism was innovation and the introduction of new technology and not
perfect competition (the invisible hand and static markets).
Schumpeter distinguished between innovation and invention. While an invention may be purely theoretical in nature (or shows up only as a prototype),
an innovation is put into practice. In a market-oriented economy, an innovation stands or falls in a "market test."
The main idea of this principle is that innovation ("creation") encourages economic growth and is thus central to capitalism's functioning. But
innovation by one company also leads to destruction of complacent firms' monopoly market share. Companies that once dominated markets (such as Xerox,
Polaroid, and Kodak) lose their dominance and shrink in profitability and importance. Creative destruction may also go the other way, toward monopoly,
as a corporation such as Wal-Mart exerts its domination of retail markets at the expense of older or smaller companies using new inventory-management,
marketing, and personnel-management techniques.
More generally, creative destruction refers to the fact that new ways of organizing production or distribution while being "creative" (having
benefits) also are destructive (having costs). Many assume that the benefits automatically exceed the costs, but there is no reason why this should
always be so. Independent farmers being driven out of business by agribusiness corporations may be forgiven if they think in terms of "destructive
How this fits in with the markets will become clear as I explain. When an especially disprutive technology(think IT, Plastic, Biotech etc) becomes an
innovation it tends to create an irrationally exuberant psychological element to the market-place which results in vastly overvalued Market Caps and
Share Price. Due to this really attractive market(attractive to Stocks that is), it encourages "pretenders" to pop up by the hundreds. For instance
in the US in the 90s when the WWW and IT was all the rage just over a thousand companies existed at its hieght(in the US do not know actual numbers
right now still trying to locate) it created an extremely overbought environment on the Nasdaq, so when the Consolidation phase hit and 80 % of Public
companies were not delivering promised results it turned the Exuberance into Anxiety slowly turning into Panic for a while then stabling off. If it
weren't for 9/11 we would already be finished with the recovery, but unfortunetly for us 9/11 DID happen so there is another "random" element
there. Basically what I am trying to say is that NO ONE CONTROLLS THE MARKETS. It controls us to an extent, we can take advantage and maybe even swing
things to our advantage from time to time, but in order to do those things you gotta have the cash.
Thats what Capitolism is all about.....
FYI, The really big money isn't even in stocks its in bonds or Gov't and Corp dept. The US Bond market is something like 10 times bigger then the
stock markets. If you want to look for Congressional influence try there, you will probably find some, but no one person or collection of persons can
control the entire markets its just too big and complex. Maybe a superintelligent AI could do it, i doubt anyone on earth today could accomplish such