otbricki's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/233865/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/123911-is-the-market-going-lower-silly-question?source=feed#comment-412051 412051
On Mar 03 04:45 PM xsellside wrote:

> A market meltdown like this begs the question, "should anyone EVER
> have a strategic asset allocation of 80% in stocks or more?" Traditional
> risk assessments of ability and willingness to take risk put many
> people in these allocations, but not one of these ‘questionnaires”
> really prepares an investor for this type of market.]]> Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:08:52 -0500
On Mar 03 04:45 PM xsellside wrote:

> A market meltdown like this begs the question, "should anyone EVER
> have a strategic asset allocation of 80% in stocks or more?" Traditional
> risk assessments of ability and willingness to take risk put many
> people in these allocations, but not one of these ‘questionnaires”
> really prepares an investor for this type of market.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123606-the-aig-scandal?source=feed#comment-409926 409926
]]> Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:38:49 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122367-stock-market-investor-depression?source=feed#comment-402285 402285
In addition the composition of the current workforce is much different than in the 1930's because of the vastly increased number of families where both husband and wife work. Dual wage earners means that unemployment rates can be higher before the same level of pain is experienced.

I agree with you about the expanding gini coefficient in America. This is a huge issue - for the past 30 something years the American worker has not participated in the growth of the economy. Several factors have gone into that - education is becoming more important to earnings potential; the tax structure is very flat, and offshore competition limits wages. It is going to be difficult to change, but making that change will be key to preserving American society as we know it today.

As to Robert Schiller's graph - you can find the data here:

www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/Fig2-1....

It looks to me like we have lost about 2/3's of what is needed to bring house prices to historical levels. Another 20% drop should be enough to get to historical trend levels.

On Feb 24 04:56 PM Gene Shorts wrote:

> Blah, another milquetoast article that espouses how the magnificient
> anglo-saxon economic ethic is going to lead us out of this mess.
> I'm glad the mandatory follow-up of Warren Buffet Gospel cake-icing
> was included. This article is not based in reality. You cannot
> really compare unemployment now vs. the great depression for two
> main reasons; one being that that increases in the unemployment rate
> have not shown any indication of slowing, so it is far too premature
> to compare the two. The second is that the unemployment rate the
> BLS uses now is significantly different than that of the great depression,
> which used broader terms to quanitfy unemployment. There are some
> very big reasons why the market increase we witnessed today will
> be short-lived. Bernanke indicated that there would be no swift
> or comprehensive approach to cleaning up the balance sheets of the
> nation's largest financial institutions, and given the amount of
> sludge that continues to toxify with erosion of collateral quality
> (Robert Schiller indicated last week that home prices are only halfway
> through their descent towards baseline levels, Meredith Whitney raised
> the likelihood of a decrease in 2 trillion of consumer lending in
> 09 and the commercial real estate market shoe is on the precipice
> of dropping), the forceful approach that is required to have any
> shot of containing this crisis is not likely to be implemented.
> The argument that the American consumer is going to pull us out of
> this predicament is laughable. The American consumer has no propensity
> to spend (based on the aforementioned wealth and credit deterioration,
> as well as a nearly 100% to GDP debt load). The retrenchement that
> began late last year is likely to continue and permanently alter
> the consumption habits of this country. Also, the consumer debt
> in the US is overwhelmingly focused at the low end of the economic
> spectrum. The expanding gini coefficient of this decade equates
> to a drowning lower-middle/underclas... that had been the backbone
> of the debt ridden consumer economy. I could go on about overseas
> problems with European banks, sovereign Euro States, treasury debt
> holders/buyers, but I think I've said enough. The central tenents
> of your arguments are bunk.]]> Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:18:06 -0500
In addition the composition of the current workforce is much different than in the 1930's because of the vastly increased number of families where both husband and wife work. Dual wage earners means that unemployment rates can be higher before the same level of pain is experienced.

I agree with you about the expanding gini coefficient in America. This is a huge issue - for the past 30 something years the American worker has not participated in the growth of the economy. Several factors have gone into that - education is becoming more important to earnings potential; the tax structure is very flat, and offshore competition limits wages. It is going to be difficult to change, but making that change will be key to preserving American society as we know it today.

As to Robert Schiller's graph - you can find the data here:

www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/Fig2-1....

It looks to me like we have lost about 2/3's of what is needed to bring house prices to historical levels. Another 20% drop should be enough to get to historical trend levels.

On Feb 24 04:56 PM Gene Shorts wrote:

> Blah, another milquetoast article that espouses how the magnificient
> anglo-saxon economic ethic is going to lead us out of this mess.
> I'm glad the mandatory follow-up of Warren Buffet Gospel cake-icing
> was included. This article is not based in reality. You cannot
> really compare unemployment now vs. the great depression for two
> main reasons; one being that that increases in the unemployment rate
> have not shown any indication of slowing, so it is far too premature
> to compare the two. The second is that the unemployment rate the
> BLS uses now is significantly different than that of the great depression,
> which used broader terms to quanitfy unemployment. There are some
> very big reasons why the market increase we witnessed today will
> be short-lived. Bernanke indicated that there would be no swift
> or comprehensive approach to cleaning up the balance sheets of the
> nation's largest financial institutions, and given the amount of
> sludge that continues to toxify with erosion of collateral quality
> (Robert Schiller indicated last week that home prices are only halfway
> through their descent towards baseline levels, Meredith Whitney raised
> the likelihood of a decrease in 2 trillion of consumer lending in
> 09 and the commercial real estate market shoe is on the precipice
> of dropping), the forceful approach that is required to have any
> shot of containing this crisis is not likely to be implemented.
> The argument that the American consumer is going to pull us out of
> this predicament is laughable. The American consumer has no propensity
> to spend (based on the aforementioned wealth and credit deterioration,
> as well as a nearly 100% to GDP debt load). The retrenchement that
> began late last year is likely to continue and permanently alter
> the consumption habits of this country. Also, the consumer debt
> in the US is overwhelmingly focused at the low end of the economic
> spectrum. The expanding gini coefficient of this decade equates
> to a drowning lower-middle/underclas... that had been the backbone
> of the debt ridden consumer economy. I could go on about overseas
> problems with European banks, sovereign Euro States, treasury debt
> holders/buyers, but I think I've said enough. The central tenents
> of your arguments are bunk.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121881-made-in-usa-is-alive-and-well?source=feed#comment-400874 400874
US military hardware spending is high tech, but only represents 100bil USD per year. Private sector is 15 times larger.

To our friend in Germany - hard to imagine that you don't see Microsoft, Boeing and Intel from time to time. So cut out the baloney.

]]> Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:34:14 -0500
US military hardware spending is high tech, but only represents 100bil USD per year. Private sector is 15 times larger.

To our friend in Germany - hard to imagine that you don't see Microsoft, Boeing and Intel from time to time. So cut out the baloney.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121616-financial-collapse-a-lesson-from-the-20s?source=feed#comment-399373 399373
BUT are their efforts to prevent deflation going to be counter-productive? That is the scary part - we may have stagflation or worse down the road. At least we still have Paul Voelker around. Maybe somebody will even listen to him.

]]> Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:28:43 -0500
BUT are their efforts to prevent deflation going to be counter-productive? That is the scary part - we may have stagflation or worse down the road. At least we still have Paul Voelker around. Maybe somebody will even listen to him.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18270?source=feed#comment-399152 399152
]]> Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:02:29 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18266?source=feed#comment-399052 399052
On Feb 22 10:53 AM HiSpeed wrote:

> It's amazing that these crooks remain in positions of power after
> their substantial contributions to this crises.
>
> Do we really expect that the same people who got the US into this
> crises will get us out if it?]]> Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:20:51 -0500
On Feb 22 10:53 AM HiSpeed wrote:

> It's amazing that these crooks remain in positions of power after
> their substantial contributions to this crises.
>
> Do we really expect that the same people who got the US into this
> crises will get us out if it?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121918-our-global-economy-how-credit-crippled-eastern-europeans-can-sink-your-401k?source=feed#comment-398569 398569 Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:23:15 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121797-15-notes-on-the-global-economy?source=feed#comment-398242 398242
GST:
US: Average 5%. Varies from 0% in some states to 10% in NY City.
Netherlands: 19%

Average Income Tax:
Netherlands: 38%
US: 28%

Gasoline:
US $0.14 / L
Netherlands $0.85 / L (+19% GST on top of that). About 7 times higher.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You also have some interesting other taxes; 1.2% on savings and investments. So if you have $1 million in savings (like many people reading here have) pay an extra $12,000 per year. WOW.

Also there is a tax for health insurance of 6.5% on the first 30,000 euro of income. Is that where your $110 euro health care payment comes from? Or is that extra?

So in the Netherlands people pay about 20% more of their income in taxes than people in the US pay.

MUCH higher taxes a popular myth? Or fact?

Definitely fact.

You really need to improve your education about the world.

> Without backing it up, User64738 knows that we have far higher taxes
> compared to the USA. That falls into the category of popular myth;
> I did think that too for a long time but most USA folks pay 30 to
> 40% taxes on their income and that is pretty much in line with over
> here.
]]> Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:30:45 -0500
GST:
US: Average 5%. Varies from 0% in some states to 10% in NY City.
Netherlands: 19%

Average Income Tax:
Netherlands: 38%
US: 28%

Gasoline:
US $0.14 / L
Netherlands $0.85 / L (+19% GST on top of that). About 7 times higher.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You also have some interesting other taxes; 1.2% on savings and investments. So if you have $1 million in savings (like many people reading here have) pay an extra $12,000 per year. WOW.

Also there is a tax for health insurance of 6.5% on the first 30,000 euro of income. Is that where your $110 euro health care payment comes from? Or is that extra?

So in the Netherlands people pay about 20% more of their income in taxes than people in the US pay.

MUCH higher taxes a popular myth? Or fact?

Definitely fact.

You really need to improve your education about the world.

> Without backing it up, User64738 knows that we have far higher taxes
> compared to the USA. That falls into the category of popular myth;
> I did think that too for a long time but most USA folks pay 30 to
> 40% taxes on their income and that is pretty much in line with over
> here.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121728-decoding-what-gold-is-telling-us?source=feed#comment-398221 398221
On Feb 20 01:31 PM 5142152-337 wrote:

> psheridan2: I agree with most of what you stated, however, GMiki
> is absolutely correct. The Wall Street CROOKS made things worse,
> after the Washington CROOKS initiated the mess. Look, if Barney
> Frank, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi didn't exist, how much trouble
> would this great country be in financially? Some, to be sure, but
> not to the extent they have created this black hole.]]> Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:26:00 -0500
On Feb 20 01:31 PM 5142152-337 wrote:

> psheridan2: I agree with most of what you stated, however, GMiki
> is absolutely correct. The Wall Street CROOKS made things worse,
> after the Washington CROOKS initiated the mess. Look, if Barney
> Frank, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi didn't exist, how much trouble
> would this great country be in financially? Some, to be sure, but
> not to the extent they have created this black hole.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121797-15-notes-on-the-global-economy?source=feed#comment-397323 397323
> Hi bricki;
>
> You think a few trillion of debt towards East Europe will be the
> nail in the coffin of West Europe?

No, only banks and the Euro. Western Europe will not end if the Euro does.

> Why not take a fine look at the 17 trillion US$ debt that the US
> financial sector has upon herself, link:
>
> www.federalreserve.gov...

> Look in the one before last column and scroll down to arrive at the
> nice 17 trillion of debt that, by the way, grows faster then the
> US GDP.

The vast majority of that debt is internal to the US. The US economy is many times larger and much more stable than Eastern Europe's.

Who would you rather count on, Serbia and Estonia or USA to repay debt?

> Also, just by the way, have you studied obesity rates in East Europe?
>
>
> And in West Europe?
>
> Some anecdotical fun:
>
> My ex was on a visit to the USA last Summer; never ever in her life
> she did see so many very very fat people.

Like I said it is a world wide problem. The overall rate in Europe is right now lower than the US, but it is increasing much faster than in the US.

Some countries in Europe right now have childhood obesity rates higher than the US.

> And why do you think it is so important to stress the 'reserve status'
> of the US dollar? This reserve status only makes the average US citizen
> more fat because a too highly valued currency only gives rise to
> a lazy workforce.

The productivity numbers are out there; the American worker is significantly more productive than the average European worker. I guess you should look up the facts before making up funny stories.

> Look at your auto mobile industry for an elementary example.
>
> And what about your infrastructure? Lets compare it with Europe...

The European auto industry? Really? Didn't we just have a major European auto company go bankrupt just today?

And the European Infrastructure is sadly lacking in many countries. Tell me about the infrastructure in Poland for example.

> And you healthcare costs? (My insurance is only 110 € and kids are
> free).

So you think none of your taxes go to pay for health care? What an amazing idea.




]]> Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:14:16 -0500
> Hi bricki;
>
> You think a few trillion of debt towards East Europe will be the
> nail in the coffin of West Europe?

No, only banks and the Euro. Western Europe will not end if the Euro does.

> Why not take a fine look at the 17 trillion US$ debt that the US
> financial sector has upon herself, link:
>
> www.federalreserve.gov...

> Look in the one before last column and scroll down to arrive at the
> nice 17 trillion of debt that, by the way, grows faster then the
> US GDP.

The vast majority of that debt is internal to the US. The US economy is many times larger and much more stable than Eastern Europe's.

Who would you rather count on, Serbia and Estonia or USA to repay debt?

> Also, just by the way, have you studied obesity rates in East Europe?
>
>
> And in West Europe?
>
> Some anecdotical fun:
>
> My ex was on a visit to the USA last Summer; never ever in her life
> she did see so many very very fat people.

Like I said it is a world wide problem. The overall rate in Europe is right now lower than the US, but it is increasing much faster than in the US.

Some countries in Europe right now have childhood obesity rates higher than the US.

> And why do you think it is so important to stress the 'reserve status'
> of the US dollar? This reserve status only makes the average US citizen
> more fat because a too highly valued currency only gives rise to
> a lazy workforce.

The productivity numbers are out there; the American worker is significantly more productive than the average European worker. I guess you should look up the facts before making up funny stories.

> Look at your auto mobile industry for an elementary example.
>
> And what about your infrastructure? Lets compare it with Europe...

The European auto industry? Really? Didn't we just have a major European auto company go bankrupt just today?

And the European Infrastructure is sadly lacking in many countries. Tell me about the infrastructure in Poland for example.

> And you healthcare costs? (My insurance is only 110 € and kids are
> free).

So you think none of your taxes go to pay for health care? What an amazing idea.




]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121556-the-ecology-of-investment-strategies?source=feed#comment-395962 395962
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On Feb 19 07:17 PM E.D. Hart wrote:

> I believe it was Buffet that said something like, " I would rather
> be approximately right than precisely wrong. This applies to all
> markets.
]]> Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:20:33 -0500
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On Feb 19 07:17 PM E.D. Hart wrote:

> I believe it was Buffet that said something like, " I would rather
> be approximately right than precisely wrong. This applies to all
> markets.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18177?source=feed#comment-395943 395943
BUT.

Are you offering an alternative to this program which will take away the damage to the overall economy? Some times you have to prescribe medicine that has undesirable side effects, and tastes really really bad.

This is the problem with Santelli. His solution is to just do nothing, to let the whole system come down around us without fighting back based on a faith that 'markets will solve the problem'. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but a lot of pain in between might be avoided.

]]> Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:56:35 -0500
BUT.

Are you offering an alternative to this program which will take away the damage to the overall economy? Some times you have to prescribe medicine that has undesirable side effects, and tastes really really bad.

This is the problem with Santelli. His solution is to just do nothing, to let the whole system come down around us without fighting back based on a faith that 'markets will solve the problem'. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but a lot of pain in between might be avoided.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121498-liquidity-and-capital-calls-at-the-yale-endowment?source=feed#comment-395361 395361 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:36:26 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121250-gold-the-only-remaining-bubble?source=feed#comment-395333 395333
1. YOUR TAXES equal what government spends. No more no less. The taxes may be deferred a bit when government borrows, but you will pay in either inflation or direct transfers. The Regan and Bush 'tax cuts' are a lie because they did not cut spending. The idea that deficits aren't important is wrong simply because government spending detracts from the private sector's freedom to allocate funds where the opportunities are.

2. The remaining argument is how big you want government to be. The correct measure of the size of government is how much government spends. Starting with Reagan Republicans have grown government just as fast as Democrats.

3. Don't neglect the effect of the end of the cold war on Clinton's results.

On Feb 19 11:55 AM Anandakos wrote:

>
> Austrian,
>
> You have slandered George HW Bush and Bill Clinton unwittingly and
> unjustly. The US government went on a THIRTY year deficit spending
> spree when Ronald Reagan cut taxes so dramatically in 1981. It is
> true that he rectified some of the shrinkage in the next two years
> with partially compensatory increases, but he set the stage for thirty
> nearly uninterrupted years of spiraling debt. Bush 41 made an attempt
> to right the ship and lost his second term, and then Clinton pumped
> more water out and lost Congress. By the end of Clinton's term --
> partially because of the DotCom boom but mostly because of the 1993
> tax increases -- the government was running an overall surplus.
> No, it hadn't gotten back to a full operating surplus as it should
> have, but it was a lot better than anything since Kennedy's term.
>
>
> People will argue forever about the proper proportion of GDP to devote
> to government activities, but one thing is not debatable: the only
> long-term (greater than 10 years' duration) debt that the government
> should accrue is for genuinely productive infrastructure investments
> and the cost of wars of defense. It's fine for it to run temporary
> (3 to 5 year) deficits during the low part of business cycles, but
> it has to liquidate the debt in the high part of the cycle.
>
> The problem is that selfish people say "we have to give the people
> their money back" in the high part of the cycle, so the debt has
> only rarely been liquidated.
>
> On Feb 18 04:14 PM austrian63 wrote:]]> Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:21:57 -0500
1. YOUR TAXES equal what government spends. No more no less. The taxes may be deferred a bit when government borrows, but you will pay in either inflation or direct transfers. The Regan and Bush 'tax cuts' are a lie because they did not cut spending. The idea that deficits aren't important is wrong simply because government spending detracts from the private sector's freedom to allocate funds where the opportunities are.

2. The remaining argument is how big you want government to be. The correct measure of the size of government is how much government spends. Starting with Reagan Republicans have grown government just as fast as Democrats.

3. Don't neglect the effect of the end of the cold war on Clinton's results.

On Feb 19 11:55 AM Anandakos wrote:

>
> Austrian,
>
> You have slandered George HW Bush and Bill Clinton unwittingly and
> unjustly. The US government went on a THIRTY year deficit spending
> spree when Ronald Reagan cut taxes so dramatically in 1981. It is
> true that he rectified some of the shrinkage in the next two years
> with partially compensatory increases, but he set the stage for thirty
> nearly uninterrupted years of spiraling debt. Bush 41 made an attempt
> to right the ship and lost his second term, and then Clinton pumped
> more water out and lost Congress. By the end of Clinton's term --
> partially because of the DotCom boom but mostly because of the 1993
> tax increases -- the government was running an overall surplus.
> No, it hadn't gotten back to a full operating surplus as it should
> have, but it was a lot better than anything since Kennedy's term.
>
>
> People will argue forever about the proper proportion of GDP to devote
> to government activities, but one thing is not debatable: the only
> long-term (greater than 10 years' duration) debt that the government
> should accrue is for genuinely productive infrastructure investments
> and the cost of wars of defense. It's fine for it to run temporary
> (3 to 5 year) deficits during the low part of business cycles, but
> it has to liquidate the debt in the high part of the cycle.
>
> The problem is that selfish people say "we have to give the people
> their money back" in the high part of the cycle, so the debt has
> only rarely been liquidated.
>
> On Feb 18 04:14 PM austrian63 wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120811-america-s-insolvent-banks?source=feed#comment-394463 394463
www.ny.frb.org/newseve...]]> Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:14:26 -0500
www.ny.frb.org/newseve...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18050?source=feed#comment-394385 394385 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:27:29 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/120705-bank-nationalization-it-s-just-plain-wrong?source=feed#comment-389763 389763
]]> Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:05:32 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120605-stimulus-watch-size-may-matter-but-quality-does-too?source=feed#comment-389329 389329
Now with the problems of 2008 we are faced with a real question as to whether this sort of policy is tenable. The middle class in America has not participated in the economic growth of the past 30 years, and has expressed itself in the most recent elections. The current recession has called into question the assumptions that under supply side economics deficit spending does not matter as the US is facing a real possibility of losing its status as the world reserve currency and its AAA credit rating.

More socialist economies in Europe and Asia have had stronger currencies and just as good economic growth without the social inequities present in the US.

Trying to claim that Democrats are primarily responsible for this is just not paying attention to the facts.

On Feb 15 08:53 AM atlasman wrote:

> Got to throw a red flag on this one. The dems and their policies
> over the last 50+ years have so constrained business that those of
> us with the ability and means to create business and jobs find these
> days that it is really more trouble than it is worth. Tax policy
> is punitive and burdensome. Fear of crippling frivolous lawsuits
> is everyone. I could go on and on but for those of you that think
> you know all the answers, try to start a business and run it for
> a couple of years and I promise you you will change you beliefs pretty
> quickly.
>
> Now before you call me a republican partisan, they have done there
> share of damage as well and ar e not immune to criticism.]]> Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:02:51 -0500
Now with the problems of 2008 we are faced with a real question as to whether this sort of policy is tenable. The middle class in America has not participated in the economic growth of the past 30 years, and has expressed itself in the most recent elections. The current recession has called into question the assumptions that under supply side economics deficit spending does not matter as the US is facing a real possibility of losing its status as the world reserve currency and its AAA credit rating.

More socialist economies in Europe and Asia have had stronger currencies and just as good economic growth without the social inequities present in the US.

Trying to claim that Democrats are primarily responsible for this is just not paying attention to the facts.

On Feb 15 08:53 AM atlasman wrote:

> Got to throw a red flag on this one. The dems and their policies
> over the last 50+ years have so constrained business that those of
> us with the ability and means to create business and jobs find these
> days that it is really more trouble than it is worth. Tax policy
> is punitive and burdensome. Fear of crippling frivolous lawsuits
> is everyone. I could go on and on but for those of you that think
> you know all the answers, try to start a business and run it for
> a couple of years and I promise you you will change you beliefs pretty
> quickly.
>
> Now before you call me a republican partisan, they have done there
> share of damage as well and ar e not immune to criticism.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120605-stimulus-watch-size-may-matter-but-quality-does-too?source=feed#comment-388897 388897
]]> Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:02:18 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120609-did-jim-chanos-break-the-law?source=feed#comment-388884 388884
]]> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:37:57 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120595-a-financial-history-of-the-world?source=feed#comment-388838 388838
On Feb 14 01:47 PM john s. gordon wrote:

> spain looted their new world possessions in the 16th century &
> hauled as much of the loot as they could back to europe.
>
> however money goes to where it has the most value, which at that
> time meant to the spanish netherlands which enjoyed economic boom
> conditions in spite of chafing under the spanish yoke.
>
> i have been rereading the biography of samuel insull whose overleveraged
> holding company house of cards collapsed in the 1930 depression,
> leading to PUHCA legislation in the FDR era, 1935. it is perhaps
> significant that PUHCA was abolished in 2005 during the regime of
> the great deregulator, Geo.dubya.]]> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:44:38 -0500
On Feb 14 01:47 PM john s. gordon wrote:

> spain looted their new world possessions in the 16th century &
> hauled as much of the loot as they could back to europe.
>
> however money goes to where it has the most value, which at that
> time meant to the spanish netherlands which enjoyed economic boom
> conditions in spite of chafing under the spanish yoke.
>
> i have been rereading the biography of samuel insull whose overleveraged
> holding company house of cards collapsed in the 1930 depression,
> leading to PUHCA legislation in the FDR era, 1935. it is perhaps
> significant that PUHCA was abolished in 2005 during the regime of
> the great deregulator, Geo.dubya.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120595-a-financial-history-of-the-world?source=feed#comment-388767 388767
Babylon was conquered by Alexander the Great.
Egypt fell mostly because of a great famine caused by the Nile failing to flood for several years.
Greece never really had an Empire
Rome lasted for 1000 years in the west until Germanic tribes sacked Rome and broke the aqueducts in 357. The eastern half of the Roman Empire lasted until 1450 (total 2000 years) or so when it was conquered by the Ottomans. Rome went through several economic crises and survived them all just fine.
The Tartars are an ethnic group originating in Mongolia. Never had an Empire.
The Caliphate was destroyed by the Mongol Empire when they conquered Baghdad.
France lost their empire when Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.
Austria-Hungary was destroyed by WWI. It was highly divided by ethnic tensions during it's short existence. Would have fallen apart anyway because it was ungovernable.
The Western half of the British Empire i.e. the US and Canada is still going strong.
Soviet still has an empire, they just had a setback and are now look like they are on a comeback. The same people are still in power i.e. ex-KGB

Empires don't fall because they get overextended economically. Economics goes in cycles anyway. Look at the US - Civil Wars, several big depressions, etc. No problem. It takes an outside force to destroy an empire.

On Feb 14 02:09 PM Jim Hawthorne wrote:

> otbriki; tell me you're joking! Empires that fell due to over-extension?
>
> Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Tartar, Caliphate/Moor, Austro-Hungarian,
> German, French, British, Soviet...
>
> Yea! You were joking?............. Right???
>
> On Feb 14 01:08 PM otbricki wrote:]]> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:44:17 -0500
Babylon was conquered by Alexander the Great.
Egypt fell mostly because of a great famine caused by the Nile failing to flood for several years.
Greece never really had an Empire
Rome lasted for 1000 years in the west until Germanic tribes sacked Rome and broke the aqueducts in 357. The eastern half of the Roman Empire lasted until 1450 (total 2000 years) or so when it was conquered by the Ottomans. Rome went through several economic crises and survived them all just fine.
The Tartars are an ethnic group originating in Mongolia. Never had an Empire.
The Caliphate was destroyed by the Mongol Empire when they conquered Baghdad.
France lost their empire when Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.
Austria-Hungary was destroyed by WWI. It was highly divided by ethnic tensions during it's short existence. Would have fallen apart anyway because it was ungovernable.
The Western half of the British Empire i.e. the US and Canada is still going strong.
Soviet still has an empire, they just had a setback and are now look like they are on a comeback. The same people are still in power i.e. ex-KGB

Empires don't fall because they get overextended economically. Economics goes in cycles anyway. Look at the US - Civil Wars, several big depressions, etc. No problem. It takes an outside force to destroy an empire.

On Feb 14 02:09 PM Jim Hawthorne wrote:

> otbriki; tell me you're joking! Empires that fell due to over-extension?
>
> Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Tartar, Caliphate/Moor, Austro-Hungarian,
> German, French, British, Soviet...
>
> Yea! You were joking?............. Right???
>
> On Feb 14 01:08 PM otbricki wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120410-jim-rogers-on-the-economy-bearish-on-stocks-and-government?source=feed#comment-388749 388749
On Feb 14 03:15 PM Tranquilmeditation wrote:

> Ex U.S. Comptroller David Walker claims the U.S. has $56 trillion
> in unfunded liabilities. Shorting America and its currency is not
> a difficult call. We might as well protect our wealth in the process.]]> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:55:59 -0500
On Feb 14 03:15 PM Tranquilmeditation wrote:

> Ex U.S. Comptroller David Walker claims the U.S. has $56 trillion
> in unfunded liabilities. Shorting America and its currency is not
> a difficult call. We might as well protect our wealth in the process.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120410-jim-rogers-on-the-economy-bearish-on-stocks-and-government?source=feed#comment-388744 388744
On Feb 14 02:18 AM Not A Stupid Obama Robot wrote:

> Rogers is right. Easy credit, materialism, instant gratification
> (and illegal aliens) got the U.S. into this mess. Now the new American
> president wants easy credit, materialism, instant gratification and
> illegal aliens. Go figure why American voters are so stupid, or,
> they want non-stop easy credit, materialism, instant gratification
> and illegal aliens to do the work t a tenth of the cost!]]> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:50:57 -0500
On Feb 14 02:18 AM Not A Stupid Obama Robot wrote:

> Rogers is right. Easy credit, materialism, instant gratification
> (and illegal aliens) got the U.S. into this mess. Now the new American
> president wants easy credit, materialism, instant gratification and
> illegal aliens. Go figure why American voters are so stupid, or,
> they want non-stop easy credit, materialism, instant gratification
> and illegal aliens to do the work t a tenth of the cost!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120595-a-financial-history-of-the-world?source=feed#comment-388544 388544

On Feb 14 06:07 AM constructe wrote:

> Economic over-extention has been the root cause for the fall of many
> empires over history. ]]> Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:08:46 -0500

On Feb 14 06:07 AM constructe wrote:

> Economic over-extention has been the root cause for the fall of many
> empires over history. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/17683?source=feed#comment-386610 386610
This is the smoking gun.

Oh Mr. Paulson, in 2000 while at GS lobbied for this change, and proposed that the SEC allow Wall Street to "self-regulate".

]]> Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:44:14 -0500
This is the smoking gun.

Oh Mr. Paulson, in 2000 while at GS lobbied for this change, and proposed that the SEC allow Wall Street to "self-regulate".

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/17559?source=feed#comment-384615 384615
]]> Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:08:09 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119734-congress-needs-a-course-in-remedial-finance?source=feed#comment-383232 383232













Except for all the others.


On Feb 10 09:13 PM Rokjok777 wrote:

> I think the grand experiment that is called Democracy may be reaching
> its final stages. When the people select their own rulers, it becomes
> a popularity contest. So instead of doing what's right for the country,
> but painful, politicians do what's popular....like borrow trillions
> more to keep the party going.]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:21:06 -0500













Except for all the others.


On Feb 10 09:13 PM Rokjok777 wrote:

> I think the grand experiment that is called Democracy may be reaching
> its final stages. When the people select their own rulers, it becomes
> a popularity contest. So instead of doing what's right for the country,
> but painful, politicians do what's popular....like borrow trillions
> more to keep the party going.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119734-congress-needs-a-course-in-remedial-finance?source=feed#comment-383230 383230

On Feb 10 04:51 PM Aalan wrote:

> All true, but whose fault is it? We elect politicians, not economists.]]> Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:19:53 -0500

On Feb 10 04:51 PM Aalan wrote:

> All true, but whose fault is it? We elect politicians, not economists.]]>