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: Gulo who wrote (41047)	11/6/2003 8:33:46 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Gulo ... much appreciation for you doing what was necessary. ... and if the USD devalues against the RMB by 50% sometime within the 25 years, then presto, TeoTwawKi. Chugs, Jay

To: Gulo who wrote (41047)	11/6/2003 8:34:47 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

“The geographical size, population, and natural resources of the British Isles would suggest that it ought to possess 3 or 4% of the world’s wealth and power, all other things being equal; but it is precisely because all other things are never equal that a peculiar set of circumstances permitted the British Isles to expand to possess, say 25% of the world’s wealth and power in its prime; and since those favorable circumstances have disappeared, all that it has being doing is returning down to its more ‘natural’ size. In the same way, it may be argued that the geographical extent, population, and natural resources of the U.S. suggest that it ought to possess perhaps 16 or 19% of the world’s wealth and power, but because of historical and technical circumstances favourable to it, that share rose to 40% or more by 1945; and what we are witnessing at the moment is the early decades of the ebbing away from that extraordinarily high figure to a more ‘natural’ share.” Kennedy Paul, (1988), The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Fontana Press, London.

To: Gulo who wrote (41047)	11/6/2003 8:43:30 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 74559

And here I thought you were all wrapped up in the banality of Canucky politics :o) Good stuff Gulo. regards Kastel

To: Gulo who wrote (41047)	11/6/2003 8:53:53 PM
From: AC Flyer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

>>I think you need to check your math, AC. Don't forget growth is exponential<< I think in this case it would be more accurately described as a geometric, not an exponential, progression. But let's not quibble about that. Your example is arithmetically correct. The question is, is it reasonable? I am sorry to tell you that it is not, and for the following simple reason - the bigger you get, the harder it is to sustain your growth rate - just ask $ill Gates. So, China's economy the same size as the USA's in 38 years? Only in your spreadsheet, not in reality. 58 years? I would assign a low probability to this. 117 years? Sounds about right.