mdmrjsds

Canada's Snap Election Could Affect ETF

Thanks for the information.

A comment on the following statement by you:
...No offense, but I'll take a two-party political system like the US any day of the week over unwieldy coalition governments....

There is much positive about a two party system, particularly its stability. But a couple of comments on this.

We have the coalitions, they just aren't called parties. The congressional Nose Picking caucus, the congressional Sleep with Eyes Open caucus, etc. These are jokes, but there are groups that cross party lines based on other factors. And they horse trade just like the coalition governments do in other countries.

While two party systems are very stable, they can descend into stagnation. The world has changed a lot in the last 100 years. But the form of the US government hasn't really changed with it. The two party system has locked out change. I know that third parties can participate, but the two parties have so institutionalized themselves that in practical terms it is next to impossible for a third party to arise. It was common until the early 20th century for there to be more than two parties in America. And incumbents actually lost their seats in congress. Hard to believe, isn't it? It seems we promote competition except in our political system.

My thought is that our system needs a little juicing.

12 years max at a stretch in congress, then you have to sit out for 6 before you can run again.

And 20 year terms for the Supreme court justices, a new one appointed every 2 years, learns the ropes for two years, then sits for 18, moving up in seniority every 2 years.

The whole way we create currency and manage the economy has to be revamped. Maybe the federal reserve and benchmark interest rate was the best they could do 100 years ago, and maybe they needed to give freebies to the member banks then, but we can do much better now.

Could radical changes like these occur under our present two party system? Not a chance. We'll march to disaster with the band playing loudly.

Global Stock Markets: We All Fall Down!

Yes, thanks. That was a lot of nice information consolidation, I imagine it took quite a lot of work to bind it into a coherent picture.

And that picture isn't pretty. Unrelentingly grim seems to be a more apt description. And yet, I don't think we're at a bottom yet. I get the impression the 'crowd' is just waiting for the turn up so they can jump back on the escalator. We haven't had a downturn this severe for a long time, but I've read that the bottom is always a time of capitulation. If that is true, definitely *not* at the bottom here.

Given the breadth of the bad news, it also seems that this is a global phenomenon, a working out of the imbalances in the system. How can there be a developed economy with zero interest rates for over a decade? How can the country driving industrial growth in the world have a severely undervalued currency and fund its customers with loans for over a decade? How can commodity prices shoot the moon with no effect on the world economy?

Can the players prop it up for a while longer? They are certainly trying. But sayings about straws and camel's backs come to mind. The one item too many being juggled. Interesting times.

Emerging Market Investing: Really an Ex-Communist Play?

I agree with your analysis to a point. If you free people from tyranny, even into lesser tyranny, their natural creativity will generate wealth. However, I think this is a short term burst. In other words, I disagree with this statement
...
A country doesn’t have to have the United States’ rule of law and rewards for individual initiative, it just has to move solidly in that direction to improve the lot of its people and provide an opportunity for investors.
...

I think the initial burst will fall in upon itself unless there is rule of law. What every emerging country you named has in common is high levels of corruption. What that means is no one can count on their persons or property being safe. A corrupt official can be bribed to take it from them at any time. How much long term wealth will be created under those conditions? How much investment?

So the returns you showed will falter unless the oligarchy running each of those countries allows their power, their control, to be challenged, allows people who aren't rich and powerful to become rich and powerful. Maybe.

The other point is that these countries are starting from such a low base that the return on investment is distorted and gives an overly optimistic picture. The economy of Australia with 20 million people almost produces as much as India with 1.3 billion (800 billion vs 1 trillion). And the economy of Canada with 30 million people produces over half as much as China with 1.3 billion people (2 trillion vs 3.0 trillion). The numbers are from memory, from the CIA factbook or world bank.