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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE ANT who wrote (86167)	1/22/2012 12:23:14 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218549

Sure... it is still America's game to lose.. and they are trying to excel at that :o( Message 27574127 as an aside... cannot see how Canada can be viewed as safe if US succeeds in losing....

To: THE ANT who wrote (86167)	1/22/2012 1:52:29 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218549

Amigo! Good to see you back here!

To: THE ANT who wrote (86167)	1/22/2012 2:14:13 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 218549

"Asia crumbled in 1997, and the rest of the emerging markets crumbled in 1998. The problem, once again, was debt." Debt had been increasing in preparation for fleecing, as in the early 80s for LATAM, but this time around a spanner was thrown into the fleecing mechanism: "And the Federal Reserve’s bailout of LTCM and *a double rate cut in the Autumn of 1998*, allowed global asset prices to recover." That double rate cut did not allowed a fleecing as in the early 80s. Compare that double rate cut in the Autumn of 1998 with Paul Volcker's double digit interest rates of the late 70s that prompted the fleecing of the 80s. Yes, we had the Asian Meltdown and its implicatons, but the fleecing was not possible. And it was that absence of the fleecing, +plus the subsequent increase in foreigner reserves to preempt on in the future that laid the foundation for the emerging markets' take off.