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: Don Lloyd who wrote (32615)	4/28/2003 11:16:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Don, I found in my clearing-out a few days ago, a book of photos of Auckland from the 1920s. The difference from now is amazing. Going back to 1900, the difference is even more amazing. There is almost nothing left. By 1990, the residual value of everything from 1920 or earlier was zero. Much of it was of negative value because the damn government loves preserving sacred old buildings and great expense. Well, some of the preservation might be justified, but I think they've gone overboard. A photo of Hong Kong in 1900, 1950 and Y2K would show substantial changes too. A photo in 2050 will show something different from now. I wonder what? My bet is a lot of low-lying cities will be abandoned wrecks. People will discover that nobody figured out the risk of tsunamis from comets. There'll be big enquiries and searches for the guilty and absurd rules established to make sure it never happens again. I cringe every time I hear that refrain - it's trotted out after every predictable disaster. Governments are the main guilty parties. They act too late and when they do act, do so in counterproductive ways. If people want to build stuff where the tsunami will hit, or volcano spout, that's their business. They might think the risk is worth the benefit. Huge costs will be incurred to keep everything far from the water. Right now, ridiculous costs are being incurred around the world for imaginary greenhouse-effect disasters while real catastrophes are lumbering on, ignored until they strike, whereupon committees will be hired at great cost to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. We never read about the benefits of the greenhouse effect, just the costs. That's suggestive of bias. We don't see them cheering increased plant growth or a nicer climate for New Zealand and that huge cold zone across Russia, China, Alaska, Canada, and Europe. Mqurice