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.

Non-Tech : Derivatives: Darth Vader's Revenge -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (317)	10/4/1998 2:28:00 AM
From: Tundra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2794

ahhaha, I appreciate your quick response; it will take some time to digest it. As an aside, I remember the high interest rate environment in the early eighties quite well. Transactional costs (other than the high interest rate costs) ran much higher as legal forum shopping was necessitated to avoid potential usury defenses. If sufficient contacts existed (and local law otherwise permit it), New York was the law of choice. It had no usury limit. In any event virtually all bank lending in Florida (where I lived) required intense review of documentation b/c penalties for usury violations were quite severe; and at those rates were too close for comfort. Now I suspect that is not the lesson you believe one should learn from that period; and will further review your post. As an additional aside, Arkansas (home of course to WJC) usury limits were 12% I recollect. If that is not accurate, suffice to say it was lower than the prevailing horrendous rates elsewhere. Further, their choice of law provisions had not been adequately tested for their efficacy. The effect of the foregoing was not surprising. A lot money flowed elsewhere. Thanks for your thoughts. Regards, Tundra

To: ahhaha who wrote (317)	10/4/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2794

Ahhaha - to a simpleton like me your message seems to be a mixture of sophistry and complacency. You seem to split hairs when you say that the 29 Crash didn't cause the Depression. If enough people (and it had reached the point where folks from all over the States were camping out in NY to follow the action) feel very wealthy and prosperous one day and are paupers the next - you'd have to think that the shock would lead to an enormous contraction of economic activity - leading to a severe recession - which was named a 'depression' because the term was less alarming than 'slump' or recession. Only by association does the word mean the financial disaster it became. The stock market rally you mentioned was not enough to pull the world out of the morass - even the socialist you deride (FDR) wasn't successful (although he gave people work (albeit make work), and hope) - it was the war and america's role as arms provider for the Commonwealth and later itself which pulled things out. A different kind of government spending - the industrial military kind - still favoured by the right. E