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 : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Canuck Dave who wrote (23452)	12/13/2002 9:05:06 PM
From: jrhana	Respond to of 36161

Power corrupts

To: Canuck Dave who wrote (23452)	12/14/2002 2:46:06 AM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 36161

The ottomans devolved from absolutism to feudalism during the 16th century.Land tenure was previously based on military service and valid only for a life time.When "tenure" became ownership the stimulus to serve the state transformed to a stimulus to serve the self. Of corse this was only a part of the problem.

To: Canuck Dave who wrote (23452)	12/14/2002 5:54:31 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

>>Then they decayed. I really don't know why.<< One main reason the Ottoman empire disintegrated was due to the opening of a sea route to the far east, based on the inventions of the compass and sextant for navigating. Turkey was at the crossroads of the silk and spice trade, supplying these valuable commodities to Europe until the advent of Vasco de Gama and the other navigators who established routes around the Cape of Good Hope. The Suez Canal, opened in 1869, was the death knell for the Ottomans, as it was cheaper, quicker, and safer to trade with China and east Asia by boat. The importance of oil didn't come until the early 20th Century (boats used either sails or coal). The Ottomans (I majored in Arabic language and history at the Univ. of Michigan) did not have a pax Romana, and perhaps if they did, they would have remained viable longer. The pax Romana allowed foreigners to become Roman citizens, which afforded them many privileges (including protection under Roman law) not available to others. The Ottomans allowed minorities (i.e., Christians and Jews) completely autonomous self government, as long as these communities paid taxes to the Sultan. The Ottomans also drew on the expertise of their minorities in running the government. In particular, Jews often supplied the personnel to run the treasury, as the Muslims didn't believe in charging interest and other necessities of handling money. Until around 1970, you could still find Muslim nations with a Jewish finance minister. If you are interested in a really good analysis, published just recently, read "What Went Wrong," by the noted historian Bernard Lewis. Among other things, he credits the fall of Islam with its inability to separate the religious from the secular--a separation that was inherent in the Christian nations of the west, based on Christ's admonition to render to Ceasar those that are Caeser's and to God those that are God's. But my real question is not about whether the middle east will ever be recognized for anything other than its oil (it will), but whether the price of gold will continue going up, given that new supplies are being discovered and brought to market at far less than the current price. Anyone have any answers? Art