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: TobagoJack who wrote (30322)	3/28/2003 10:21:56 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Respond to of 74559

just a detail, Jay, that bothers me... Now and then there's refs to "a 900-year ancient conflict". What happened in 1103?! Oh, you mean the other guy from Tikrit, Salâhu d-din yussuf and the crusaders? Hey, but it's them who started, they took first N Africa and then Iberian peninsula... etc we'll never learn dj

To: TobagoJack who wrote (30322)	3/28/2003 10:42:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

who is going to buy the stock certificates when the baby boomers need to sell, and is otherwise not able to work to earn their keep, to pay for things so that companies can generate a profit so as to distribute a dividend, The population of the US is predicted to increase to 500 million within 15-20 years. Of course, most of that increase will consist of Catholic hispanics... But Catholicism is already established in the US and not necessarily a threat to democratic or western value systems. And this increase is the result of the Latin baby boom over the past 20 years, wherein 10 years ago, 50% of Mexican society was under the age of 18.. Now they are looking for jobs and moving to the US, which is attempting to absorb this influx of Latin baby boomers. And while that may bother some Americans, I'm cool with it since I speak decent Spanish and I love Latin food (and it tries to love me right back.. :0) But Europe is on the border of the Muslim baby boom.. And muslim values are quite different than those of traditional Europe. And thus, we're likely to see an increasing hostility towards Muslims in European societies over the coming years. Muslims will find it much more difficult to integrate into European society than Latinos into the US. And they will bring Islamic militancy along with them, much as we're starting to see in Germany, France, and Britain. But lest anyone perceive me as "anti-muslim", let me clarify. I'm against Islamic Fascism.. The attempt to create a Theocratic system dominated by Sharia, intolerant of other religious and political views, wherein all economic and political structures are subverted to the cause of spreading Islam throughout the world, peacefully, or if need be, through force. And I think most young Muslims are opposed to living under such conditions as well.. They don't want to live under such stringent rules and regulations, where power exists in the hands of religious zealots, and their happiness and dreams are subordinated to lives of austerity.. I would be just as opposed were the Vatican to attempt to restore the power of the Pope over national governments.. Where politicians would be required to seek the favor of the pope to legitimize their elected office. And I certainly would be opposed to any attempt to wage a Crusade against Islam, as I would be in opposing Jihadists. I'll answer the rest of your post in another response... Need to catch a smoke.. Hawk

To: TobagoJack who wrote (30322)	3/28/2003 11:32:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Now this link: Message 18764902 It also is possible that Syrian leaders might believe that if they are going to negotiate a strategy for regime preservation, now is the time to do it. This sums up the likely rationale for Syria's current rumblings. They are isolated, a minority Alawite clan ruling some very hostile Sunnis (many being fundamentalists who's kin were massacred at Hama in 1982)... But an even more sinister strategy would be if the hardliners in Syria decided to throw their lot in with Iraq in an attempt to widen the war to include Israel (which could not remain on the sidelines).. This could create an "interesting" dynamic and the key question is how the Turks would come in to the battle. (I just posed this scenario to some friends here at work and all of their eyebrows kinda lifted up with a big "hmmm..."... As for this post, this is my view: Message 18764904 Both moves would trigger an outcry from South Korea and Japan, thus pressuring the United States to address the situation immediately. And in North Korea's calculations, Washington has only two choices in such circumstances: either launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korean facilities or accede to bilateral talks aimed at ending the nuclear standoff and formulating a non-aggression pact with the North. I don't see the US entering into Bi-Lateral talks that exclude other regional governments. It's not to our advantage to permit Kim Jong Il to narrow this confrontation to a "one on one".. His actions threaten the entire region.. It's to our advantage to force the Chinese to restrain him.. even if that means permitting Japan to "go nuclear" (which would not thrill Bejing). As for this post, Message 14869036 I believe I answered it sufficiently by explaining the predicted increase in the US tax base as more Latinos move here seeking jobs. This may account for a decreasing dollar, as the US is forced to stop subsidizing foreign economic growth through trade deficits and moving toward making US goods more attractive to foreign markets through currency operations. But I still don't see Japan or Europe continuing with their strong currency policies unless they are finally willing to accept the necessary economic restructuring. Nothing has fundamentally changed in Japan.. They still have a national debt equating to approximately 140% of their annual GDP, combined with an aging demographic (and declining tax base due to their general xenophobia towards Gaijins) and social homogeneity (but this may change).. Europe has it's own economic problems with it's aging population and underfunded state pension plans. There will likely be a between those who realize the need for increasing, or at least stabilizing the tax base by importing foreign labor, and those who are more xenophobic towards muslims. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. To me, every bit you wrote can be, based on any number of officialdom pronouncements, subsequent media parroting, and optimistically, private intentions. Well, I don't see many voices discussing the demographic aspect of this problem in the middle east. All I've done is applied Harry Dent's theories to the established demographic facts, and recognized that the region is economically stagnant, non-diversified (oil based), with a tremendous population growth that must be accomodated by economic growth. And economic growth is clearly not happening fast enough... And the repercussions of such stagnation will ripple through the rest of the global economy. At least that's my view... And I wish more politicians were willing to discuss it.. I think it's the "elephant sitting in the room' that no one wants to dicuss. Probably because of the racial and cultural overtones that would be implied. I prefer to not see the final resolution in my lifetime, much like skipping out on a bad movie before it ends You and me both.. :0) But we still know the movie has to end.. and this one is interactive, where we decide the climax and epilogue well in advance. The demographic trend is obvious for all you choose to acknowlege it. It's the "pig going through the python" in the middle east.. Thus, the strategic moves we make now to prevent militancy from shaping the outcome of these demographic trends will save countless lives on all sides later on and possibly prevent a "clash of civilizations" (or at least minimize it).. I don't know if it's possible, but there's a damn good reason that religions should be subservient to a social structure, rather than the other way around. Religions should battle for hearts and minds peacefully, not militarily. And the only way this can feasibly occur, IMO, is when a secular democratic government, with checks and balances, and inalienable rights, is the the arena in which these religiouns interface.. But what do I know?? hehe.. Thanks for making me think on this Friday morning... Always good to have people like you force me to defend my thought process... Hawk