Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (22057)	8/4/2002 2:44:14 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Obviously if someone is happy with the status quo, he will never accept the idea of change. He prefers to believe that his natural life passes by without having to experiment the shake that comes with the change. But change do not depend on someone did not want it. It happens wanted or not wanted.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (22057)	8/4/2002 4:45:14 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<One man, one vote. Best idea we've had in 300 years> Apart from CDMA and sliced bread. Mqurice

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (22057)	8/4/2002 8:40:33 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Raymond, <<One man, one vote. Best idea we've had in 300 years>> This could be the case, facile or otherwise, if it is actually the case, but as DJ pointed out, very few countries are run on this basis in the letter and spirit of the case. Coming closest to the true solution, if there is such a solution, may not be good enough, just like a leaking pipe on a rocket ship. In the mean nasty time, we simply have the same old thing of privilege, dynasties, cronies, and hangers-on. I have no complaints against the existing order of matter and dark matter, because I am doing OK as of the last time I tallied, and yet, being one dwelling on gold and time machines, I cannot help but ponder: <<The system of one-man-one-vote, while kinder and gentler in the short term (within a few generations), may in fact be detrimental to progress of particular branches of history, because it lacks the vitality of Revolution, the dynamic re-mixing of ingredients to give rise to brand new abracadabras>> Being detrimental to progress of particular branches of history does not mean good or bad, right or wrong, but just is that, being detrimental to … progress … history. <<I really don't see any reason to reinvent that wheel>> I do not advocate reinventing anything because I have nothing to say in the matter, and in fact, very few do, even with one-man-one-vote mirages. I am only interested in how to navigate the history that I happen to be living in: (a) bubbles are necessary for rapid implementation of new infrastructures and technologies (b) recessions are necessary for cleansing the foam and fizz of bubbles (c) demolitions are necessary for city-scape reinvention (d) Argentina 2001 are necessary for Argentina 2005, and (e) maybe, perhaps, revolutions are necessary for rapid progress through history loops but ... (a) Greensputin tries to short circuit economic cycle (b) Japan failed to do so (c) Whereas I am willing to bet Argentina will recover faster than Japan (c) One-man-one-vote construct short circuits Revolutionary cycles ... I do not know what I do not know, and I do not know plenty, and so must try to ponder via analogies, with history as guidance, minus the emotional baggage of ownership. No right or wrong, but just is, unless short-circuited, until not. Chugs, Jay