Hello Maurice, <<The USA has intrinsic advantages>>
... and those would precisely be what? Another mostly empty territory where the residents can be regime changed?
In case you hadn't heard, the campaign in Mesopotamia is about done, and well, should the original fears be realized, Saudi Arabia will be a new battle ground, for another ... what, 3 years? After, teotwawki will be that much closer.
You are not going to call upon the English language as an intrinsic advantage, are you? Be serious.
Well, actually don't; for the entertainment value is simply too rich :0)
Or are you going to invoke the non-starter argument of 'most flexible' economy ;0)
Learn to challenge assumptions Maurice, do not be a clone.
Remember the time before the 300 year accident, that was the norm, suppose for a mo, and as you should well know, it is precisely not important for all 1.3 bil or 2.6 bil folks to average out at more than Switzerland; it is enough for 100 mil or 200 mil. This is the neat thing about trajectories.
Arun is also faulty in assuming that the top spot cannot be kept. Must experience the truth that is embodied in the board game of Risk, where the obvious winning player over extends, and the apparent catch-up player does exactly that, just in the right time, and makes a clean sweep ... the critical event is not clean sweep, the critical issue is clean sweep WHEN, such that the sweep can be maintained.
that is the scenario I figure, and in the meantime, thanks to the likes of Greensputin, BurnAndKaput, and Konig GWB Mission Accomplished NotAtAll, the trajectory has momentum. The script is so very obvious, but I am guessing not to the majority.
My basic assumption is that capitalism is a very astute system, and when applied be very clever, as in intrinsically smart folks, is a winning combo. Well, the system is now being applied by very clever folks, who, given half a chance anywhere in the world, does well, in any language. That is the intrinsic.
You are simply espousing the majority view, and ... well, enough of that, moving to a BTW, speaking of what you and I haggled over back and forth, with you on the side of majority, and now, wrong again, because the hair is starting to show ... :0)
The script, it was so obvious. Anyone who would cheat on his wife would of course cheat on his investors.
You must learn to challenge your not well founded assumptions, cut out the slogans, and see the truth amongst the facts.
online.barrons.com
JACK WELCH, GENERAL ELECTRIC'S DEMANDING former chief executive, delighted in setting the bar high. When he stepped down a few days before Sept. 11, 2001, he left his successor, Jeffrey Immelt, the challenge of matching a remarkable string of years of strong profit growth.
What was most remarkable about those years, however, wasn't apparent to anyone outside the company until recently. The bar might have been set artificially high.
During the last five years of the Welch era, ended in 2001, GE's reported earnings jumped from 72 cents a share to $1.37, a rise of 65 cents a share, or 90.2% -- spectacular for a behemoth like GE. But without a massive under-reserving at its reinsurance unit, the company would have shown a cumulative earnings gain of just four cents, or 5.6%.
Ex-boss Welch, top, left current CEO Immelt with a big mess to clean up.
The under-reserving is expected to be completely corrected early next year, clearing the way for the unit's sale to Swiss Re. By the time that occurs, General Electric (ticker: GE) will have pumped in $9.4 billion in pretax dollars since 2001 to raise the reserves to an adequate level. When taxes are taken into consideration, the tab will come to $6.1 billion, or about 61 cents a share. And 61 cents would have all but torched the 65 cents of earnings gains in Welch's last five years. |
