Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism”

    Originally posted by Finster
    Try a little thought experiment, Jim. Suppose your unit of currency was an ounce of gold. During the 1970's you would have experienced falling prices. A loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, a house payment, would all have fallen to one degree or another. Then in January 1980, prices would have bottomed. Then begun to rise. For the next twenty odd years, you experience rampant inflation, as the price of everything seems to skyrocket.

    Next let's change our currency. This time, neither dollars nor ounce of gold, but shares of stock. During these same past twenty years, you experience not rising, but falling prices. Bread goes from, say, 0.20 shares of stock to 0.05 shares. Quite the opposite of what happened in the 1970s.

    Note how different your experience is, depending on whether you use dollars, ounces, or shares as you unit of measure.

    Now the question I put to you is the following: On what basis do you assert that any of these is the one and only correct unit of measure?

    I anxiously await your answer.
    Fortunately, I quickly checked back so that I may assuage your anxiousness.

    The unit of accounting in all commerce in which I engage is the bonar/dollar. There is no other way to assess my brokerage statement or to figure out my taxes. So the unit is the USD/bonar.

    Finster, you have made as much, probably more, influence on my financial thinking in the last year than anything else I can mention, and I appreciate that, I do. Nevertheless from when the market opens tomorrow, if I have a choice of whether it goes up or not, if I am long I will vote for it to go up, if I am short, I hope it goes down. Right now I am a bit short, and a bit long, and what I am hoping for is to see something happen violently one way or the other. Whenever it comes to deploying my cash bonars, I only deploy them in hopes of ultimately gaining more of them--not for greed's sake, but for the sake of continuing to play, and I mean play, in the market with the ultimate goal of having more dollars. If I have more bonars in the future, I am better off than having fewer regardless of what the true, real, inflation-adjusted, FDI-adjusted result is. Not to have more of them is to lose money, and who spends anytime with any of this stuff with a goal of not having more bonars.

    I certainly have no control over what happens to the value of the money, but hopefully by investing in something, at some point I will not again suffer a very significant loss of the number of bonars I may have. It is my opinion right now, that nobody really knows what is going to happen or when whatever does happen will happen--how is that for real insight!

    I don't assert that any one asset against which anyone wishes to value another is the right one. Hellsbells, they are all relative. It is a bet as to which one will do better against the others, when however it turns out, I personally am going to end up holding some bonar/dollars (actually I am going to end up dead holding nothing), and still hope for more of them rather than less for wife's sake, and then it is her problem.
    Jim 69 y/o

    "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

    Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

    Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism”

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
      Fortunately, I quickly checked back so that I may assuage your anxiousness.
      Thanks for the effort and consideration, Jim. ;)

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
      Finster, you have made as much, probably more, influence on my financial thinking in the last year than anything else I can mention, and I appreciate that, I do.
      Despite my teasing and cajoling, I appreciate your role in these conversations as well, Jim. Your prodding and nudging forces me to look at things in new ways and clarify my thinking and writing.

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
      The unit of accounting in all commerce in which I engage is the bonar/dollar. There is no other way to assess my brokerage statement or to figure out my taxes. So the unit is the USD/bonar.
      That is all well and good, but there is nothing in finance more important than to appreciate the distorting effect of a variable unit of account on our thinking. We have a deeply ingrained tendency, reinforced by our use of fixed units for just about everything else, to think about values as if the bonar itself were a reliable reference. Buy a pound of beef, and it’s the same amount of beef today as yesterday, and yesterday as fifty years ago. Measure the length of a house or football field, and you can use the same feet as was used yesterday or fifty years ago.

      Not at all so with the bonar. If you want to make valid comparisons across time, you have to specify which bonar you are talking about. The 1989 bonar? The 2000 bonar? Or even the bonar of February 23 versus that of May 7. They’re all different.

      Uncle Sam may insist that you use his rubber bonar for figuring your taxes, but is not true that there is no other way to assess your brokerage statement. I know because I do it myself. I use a spreadsheet to track my investments and use conversions throughout to put my portfolio on a firm footing. Before I calculate my returns, I put all values in terms of the Y2KD using the FDI (the USD as of 12:00 AM, 1/1/2000).

      This exercise amounts to much more than academic curiosity, because it affects how I make decisions about investments. It tells me, for example, that the stock market has done relatively little the past three or four years. Those who think it has been soaring as the media have been reporting record after record might be tempted to think it is very high, as it was in March of 2000, and unduly fear a similar or worse outcome. They might think gold is very high, while it’s actually still fairly cheap. No, mostly it’s just that the bonar has gone down, so it takes more of them to buy the same stock or same gold. And if either were to rise in nominal, current-bonar terms by 20%, but if the price of everything I had to buy had risen by 40%, I would not be fooled into thinking I was truly richer.

      It isn’t hypothetical. Thirty or forty years ago, the stock averages were about one tenth of where they are today. But so was the price of a barrel of oil. An ounce of gold. The same house. Now really, have they all just happened to have become more valuable by about the same amount?

      Or did the USD fall in value to about a tenth of what it was?

      If you were so fortunate as to have doubled your bonar stash over that time, you are 80% poorer!

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
      Nevertheless from when the market opens tomorrow, if I have a choice of whether it goes up or not, if I am long I will vote for it to go up, if I am short, I hope it goes down. Right now I am a bit short, and a bit long, and what I am hoping for is to see something happen violently one way or the other. Whenever it comes to deploying my cash bonars, I only deploy them in hopes of ultimately gaining more of them--not for greed's sake, but for the sake of continuing to play, and I mean play, in the market with the ultimate goal of having more dollars. If I have more bonars in the future, I am better off than having fewer regardless of what the true, real, inflation-adjusted, FDI-adjusted result is. Not to have more of them is to lose money, and who spends anytime with any of this stuff with a goal of not having more bonars.
      Ahh, but here you are comparing values with bonars contemporary with each other. At some future date, of course you are going to be better off having more bonars of that day than less bonars of that day. But the issue here is the folly of using bonars of one day and another day as if they were the same. It is no different a proposition than if you were to argue having more ounces of gold or shares of stock on some given future date would be better than having less.


      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
      I certainly have no control over what happens to the value of the money, but hopefully by investing in something, at some point I will not again suffer a very significant loss of the number of bonars I may have. It is my opinion right now, that nobody really knows what is going to happen or when whatever does happen will happen--how is that for real insight!
      May be more insightful than you imagine. This is the premise behind diversification. You might lay odds on any given outcome, but that’s the best you can do. There is no certainty.

      Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
      Hellsbells, they are all relative.
      You’re catching on … ;)

      This may indeed be a historical extreme, but the only difference between this and any other loss of value in the unit of account is magnitude. It helps illustrate what we are dealing with here by magnifying it and making it easier to see.
      MEMORIES OF THE WEIMAR INFLATION
      by Bill Carson
      July 28, 2005

      ...As an apprentice painter Wilhelm found himself making more and more money as wages increased during the early 1920’s. Unfortunately those Reichsmarks would purchase less and less as time went on. My grandfather told me that at one point he made RM1,000,000 a day, an amount that was paid daily. One million Marks, it turned out, was enough for his lunch on the job site, and then to buy food for dinner for himself, his father, and his sister. Nothing else....

      http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/ed...2005/0728.html
      Last edited by Finster; 12-27-06, 02:37 PM.
      Finster
      ...

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

        Finster, with me you have succeeded with the point of the relativity of values, and I hope many other visitors and members of iTulip have benefitted equally or moreso than I. I guess it is possible that whatever I write with regard to this betrays the first sentence.

        Originally posted by Finster
        Ahh, but here you are comparing values with bonars contemporary with each other. At some future date, of course you are going to be better off having more bonars of that day than less bonars of that day. But the issue here is the folly of using bonars of one day and another day as if they were the same. It is no different a proposition than if you were to argue having more ounces of gold or shares of stock on some given future date would be better than having less.
        If milk and gasoline required some portion of gold to walk out of the grocery store with the milk or to drive away from the pump with the gasoline, then it follows that the more gold I possess the better off I am.

        When it comes to paper bonars, and not gold, the picture changes. A true wipe out of the bonar, as in Weimar Germany, such that it is truly worth nothing. That is frightening to consider.

        Whatever is the unit of measure though which we engage in monetary transactions, the more of that measure I have, then the better. Gosh, I hope we can totally agree on that. Again the exception being a Weimar-like disaster.

        Understanding the relativity of values is of worth when grasping for reality.

        Without actually doing it in my spreadsheet, which for the moment I am not able to do with regard to time, I cannot see where using the FDI to assess "reality" is better than using the bonar except from the perspective of gaining a grasp of relativity to the bonar. I hope I did not step into deep doodoo by writing that. You know I am not putting down the FDI, I've even got a few in my pocket right now--FD's that is.

        Even you in discussing the drill I did on trying to track the ETF's as allocated suggested was "calculated to go up."

        Originally posted by Finster
        In fact the portfolio allocation I gave was intentionally calculated to go up.
        So using many things that you have someway (mysteriously to me) gained from education, experience, the school of hard-knocks, or a dart board, you suggested certain positions of allocation into which you thought most likely to net out more bonars over some period of time. This strikes me rather much as the same thing everyone else who is responsible for making his/her own investment decisions does. I expect you have premised some macro-economic turn of events into your decision making process. Whatever, you like everyone else, each limited by his or her perspectives of what the future holds, have placed your bets with the hope that your assessment nets out more bonars at some future time.

        I conclude we are back at square one, in that most of us, if not all, seek to have more bonars in the future. Differences exist as how to arrive at that point.

        As I think further, there are really two types of investment philosophies at play here. One is perhaps the most typical of what has been brow-beaten into regular small investors, i.e. a buy-and-hold stategy, and the other may be portfolios that vary with the "economic season."

        Right now I am generally convinced that something along the lines of Browne's asset allocation model would be best if one is of the buy-and-hold persuasion--something from which someone is truly going to walk away for a year or more at a time.

        Then there may be everyone else such as mutual funds, you, me and what I perceive as most others who are trying to place bets on sectors (or individual stocks, holding gold coins) that will at some definite point, not in time but based on the number of bonars worth, be liquidated with the proceeds going into some other assets with anticipation to ultimately gather more bonars. Perhaps this latter group is more sophisticated or is at least trying to be.

        For one to use Browne's allocation, it seems a bet more on there being some possible certainty to future outcomes--or stated differently, on the likely uncertainty of future outcomes.

        For everyone in the second group, there is recognition that there is as you, in Einsteinian succintness {E=(m X (cXc)}, stated, "no certainty in investing." Actually both groups are recognizing the uncertainty of investing. What differs in whether you walk away or don't walk away.

        Finster, I don't know how we can beat this horse much more.

        Is it possible to really define a perfect or near-perfect formula for asset allocation that would/should better protect those who are buy-and-hold participants in the markets, something better than what Browne described?

        If most people who read iTulip are not buyers-and-holders, then it might not be worthwhile to consider it. I personally think attempting to putting forth something better than Browne's suggestion, if it is possible, is worth the dialogue.

        Regarding Weimar inflation, what could a German have done assuming some financial assets in hand, had he or she the foresight to see what was coming with hyperinflation? Was the only answer, gold and/or silver and nothing else, or was there something else?

        p.s. I am going to find the time to assess my wealth using the FDI as that standard, as a few more sites in my left-hemisphere just booted, and making me perceive the value of your having stated "gold is cheap."
        Last edited by Jim Nickerson; 12-27-06, 04:39 PM. Reason: To finish a response.
        Jim 69 y/o

        "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

        Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

        Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          Finster, I don't know how we can beat this horse much more.
          I dunno, Jim, but I’m game as long as you are … ;)

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          Regarding Weimar inflation, what could a German have done assuming some financial assets in hand, had he or she the foresight to see what was coming with hyperinflation? Was the only answer, gold and/or silver and nothing else, or was there something else?
          For a Weimar victim, gold and silver (assuming one could legally own them) would have been excellent, as would have a portfolio of stocks. Especially, but not exclusively, global stocks. For as the mark fell, the prices of things would rise and stocks would be no exception. Foreign-currency denominated bonds would also work. A Weimar victim with a diversified portfolio (across asset classes and geographies) would have done fine.

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          If milk and gasoline required some portion of gold to walk out of the grocery store with the milk or to drive away from the pump with the gasoline, then it follows that the more gold I possess the better off I am.

          When it comes to paper bonars, and not gold, the picture changes. A true wipe out of the bonar, as in Weimar Germany, such that it is truly worth nothing. That is frightening to consider.
          A better way to think of it is as follows. Suppose at some future point in time, you still need bonars to get milk at the store or gasoline at the pump. And supposing history is a guide, you will need many more of said bonars for the same quantity of milk or gasoline. But similarly, you would need many more bonars to purchase an ounce of gold as well. Insofar as that is the case, you would be better off to convert your bonars to gold today, and then reconvert the gold to bonars at said future point in time.

          Keep in mind that what happened in Wiemar is happening in the here and now as we speak, simply in much slower motion. At one point in time, the Reichmark may have lost 90% of its value in thirty-odd days. The bonar has merely taken thirty-odd years to do the same. Other than that, no difference. And as far as how long it will take it to lose the next 90%, who knows?

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          Whatever is the unit of measure though which we engage in monetary transactions, the more of that measure I have, then the better. Gosh, I hope we can totally agree on that. Again the exception being a Weimar-like disaster.
          Of course. As long as we are referring to a single point in time, and not trying to compare values across time. And except that Weimar is not exactly an exception (see above).

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          Without actually doing it in my spreadsheet, which for the moment I am not able to do with regard to time, I cannot see where using the FDI to assess "reality" is better than using the bonar except from the perspective of gaining a grasp of relativity to the bonar. I hope I did not step into deep doodoo by writing that. You know I am not putting down the FDI, I've even got a few in my pocket right now--FD's that is.
          The concept is not dependent on the use of a particular index. I believe the FDI is best, but feel free to use an alternative measure such as the BLS-CPI, the SGS-CPI, or what have you. The key concept to grasp is that if you want to build - even preserve - wealth, you have no way of knowing whether you are succeeding, failing, or to what degree unless you make some kind of adjustment. As I pointed out above, you could have doubled your stash of bonars over the past forty years and been 80% poorer for it.

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          So using many things that you have someway (mysteriously to me) gained from education, experience, the school of hard-knocks, or a dart board, you suggested certain positions of allocation into which you thought most likely to net out more bonars over some period of time. This strikes me rather much as the same thing everyone else who is responsible for making his/her own investment decisions does. I expect you have premised some macro-economic turn of events into your decision making process. Whatever, you like everyone else, each limited by his or her perspectives of what the future holds, have placed your bets with the hope that your assessment nets out more bonars at some future time.
          There are nevertheless some crucial differences. I have outlined at least one above. Another is that my fear of having assets in things other than cash is greatly diminished by the appreciation that cash itself is not nearly so constant as imagined, and that indeed, most of the time it is going down. Then in the relatively rare event that it goes up, even if the size of my portfolio as measured in bonars declines somewhat, if the bonar itself has risen at least as much, then I nevertheless have earned a positive return.

          Put another way, I do not fear deflation as much because I care little if I have 10% less bonars next year provided that the things I buy cost 10% fewer bonars. If I have 10% less bonars and everything costs 20% fewer bonars, then I still have a positive 10% return. Moreover, I can assess the risk and ensure that if such a 20% deflation were to come to pass, my allocation of assets would make that positive return highly probable. If, on the other hand, I define my return purely in nominal bonars, my fear of that imaginary loss may ensure I incur a real loss if deflation does not occur.

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          As I think further, there are really two types of investment philosophies at play here. One is perhaps the most typical of what has been brow-beaten into regular small investors, i.e. a buy-and-hold stategy, and the other may be portfolios that vary with the "economic season."
          Or one can do as I do, and use a hybrid, dynamic-allocation strategy.

          Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
          Is it possible to really define a perfect or near-perfect formula for asset allocation that would/should better protect those who are buy-and-hold participants in the markets, something better than what Browne described?
          By definition, a buy and hold strategy is one used by someone that does not depend on frequent attention to his investments. My personal view is that, because of the long-term near-certainty of inflation, one is likely to be better off with a somewhat higher allocation to stocks and gold and less to cash and bonds than with Browne’s 25-25-25-25 mix. This assumes the caveat that the investor truly does take a long term view and is willing to put up with somewhat greater year-to-year volatility in principle … without becoming tempted to mess with the mix and thus wind up getting whipsawed.

          But even more importantly, one needs to take into account one’s entire financial picture. I can imagine someone with $500,000 in mortgage debt applying the 25-25-25-25 mix blindly, without considering that that debt amounts to a half-million-dollar short position in bonds. Or in the other direction, someone entitled to a federal civil service pension blindly applying the same mix without taking into account that said pension is financially similar to a huge slug of TBonds.

          The assumption that there are no other major financial elephants in the room IMO is far more important than the precise details of the mix - otherwise the mix is going to be wrong regardless.
          Finster
          ...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

            Finster,

            For me this is good stuff, certainly worth my time, and I hope others see its value if they care to read your comments.

            I have just put in some numbers for SPX, WLSH, DJI, RUT, COMPQ, NDX, GOLD, SILVER, OIL, COPPER looking at their nominal changes from 12/31/99, which is as close as I can come to 1/1/2000 standard of FDI= 1.00, to a bottom I selected of 10/9/02, and then to yesterday so far. I have then computed the nominal losses to the bottom and also using FDI valuation, then from that bottom to yesterday's nominal gains and also using FDI valuation. I also have numbers just from 12/31/99 to yesterday, nominally and "FDIally"--how is that for a word? The computations do not take any dividend reinvestments into account.

            What are a couple of international indices that you think are good representations? EEM and EFA will not not work because they did not exist on 12/31/99. Any suggestions? I am getting the numbers from stockcharts.com which I presume has more things available than anything else I can readily access.

            If I am doing this correctly, it is still going to bring up some questions from me regarding the actual utility of the FDI as a benchmark. But that is why we who visit iTulip are fortunate to have you here too.

            If you can help me with my request, then I will work on getting the results into itulip, right here in this thread.

            Thanks.
            Jim 69 y/o

            "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

            Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

            Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

              Originally posted by Jim Nickerson
              Finster,

              For me this is good stuff, certainly worth my time, and I hope others see its value if they care to read your comments.

              I have just put in some numbers for SPX, WLSH, DJI, RUT, COMPQ, NDX, GOLD, SILVER, OIL, COPPER looking at their nominal changes from 12/31/99, which is as close as I can come to 1/1/2000 standard of FDI= 1.00, to a bottom I selected of 10/9/02, and then to yesterday so far. I have then computed the nominal losses to the bottom and also using FDI valuation, then from that bottom to yesterday's nominal gains and also using FDI valuation. I also have numbers just from 12/31/99 to yesterday, nominally and "FDIally"--how is that for a word? The computations do not take any dividend reinvestments into account.

              What are a couple of international indices that you think are good representations? EEM and EFA will not not work because they did not exist on 12/31/99. Any suggestions? I am getting the numbers from stockcharts.com which I presume has more things available than anything else I can readily access.

              If I am doing this correctly, it is still going to bring up some questions from me regarding the actual utility of the FDI as a benchmark. But that is why we who visit iTulip are fortunate to have you here too.

              If you can help me with my request, then I will work on getting the results into itulip, right here in this thread.

              Thanks.
              On the EFA and EEM question, search me. The indices these ETFs track have tickers NDDUEAFE and NDUEEGF, respectively. I was unable to pull up StockCharts for them, however. You may be able to find more about them at Barclay's iShares web site - http://www.ishares.com/home.jhtml?&_requestid=445145.

              Also note that SPX and WLSH overlap; that is, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 index contains the S&P 500. The ETF SPY (Spider) represents the S&P 500 and the ETF VXF (Viper) represents all the rest of the Wilshire 5000 except for the S&P 500. WLSH also includes DJI, RUT, COMPQ, NDX, so they are redundant.

              There are, however, single indices that represent the entire global stock market, so you can save a lot of work. MSCI World is one, there are others at Dow Jones Indexes - http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde...howTotalMarket. Likewise, there are indices representative of the broad commodities market, e.g. at http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde...nt=showAigHome; they can allow you to dispense with individual commodities...
              Finster
              ...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                Originally posted by Finster
                Likewise, there are indices representative of the broad commodities market, e.g. at http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/inde...nt=showAigHome; they can allow you to dispense with individual commodities...
                There's also the $CRB and $CCI at stockcharts. The $CCI is the "old" $CRB without the heavy oil & energy weighting.
                http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                  Bart, Finster,

                  Thanks for pointing, will check into those and see what I can gather.
                  Jim 69 y/o

                  "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                  Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                  Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                    one of 10,000 kazoo squeaks in the bullhorn blast...

                    or pearls before swine...

                    http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=724

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                      Originally posted by metalman View Post
                      one of 10,000 kazoo squeaks in the bullhorn blast...

                      or pearls before swine...

                      http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=724
                      I used to regularly go to his [her?] blog [here], but it looks like this kazoo went silent last August?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                        Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                        I used to regularly go to his [her?] blog [here], but it looks like this kazoo went silent last August?
                        that last post is dated august '07.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                          Originally posted by jk View Post
                          that last post is dated august '07.
                          Down the memory hole it goes. I recall EJ was friends with the site's author. Maybe EJ can update us on his or her whereabouts?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                            Originally posted by Ann View Post
                            Down the memory hole it goes. I recall EJ was friends with the site's author. Maybe EJ can update us on his or her whereabouts?
                            “...comments from Wu Xiaoling, deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, indicating her unease at the rapid build-up of $1,000bn of reserves in China. She said Asian foreign exchange reserves were at risk from the dollar’s fall.” (FT, Nov 24)

                            that was in 2006, almost a trillion dollars ago.

                            how may warnings will china give the usa?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: World Needs Better “Face of American Capitalism” than Private Equity

                              Originally posted by jk View Post
                              that last post is dated august '07.
                              My, my. How time flies . It's hard to keep track when you don't have the rhythm of day and night, sun rising and setting, the seasons changing...because the bunker has no windows.

                              Thanks for the correction.

                              I kept checking the site periodically hoping it would come alive again, especially since the last post was supposed to be part 1 of a 2 part entry.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X