Berkshire_Bull
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 174
I just finished reading a book called America's 60 Familes and it's a rather obscure book i stumbled across in the stacks of the University of Wisconsin La Crosse library. And anyway the jist of it is the suggested title, the wealthy in America and their actions in history. The book was first published in the early 1940s and this print was from the '60s. Anyway, there were two things that i found very intriguing, i'll split the posts. Many people wondered how our economic growth of the last 100 years compared to the other superpower nations of 1900, well here we have it:
In 1900 Britain's median income was 20% higher than the United States, Germany's was 60% higher. These were essentially the superpowers of the time. This would seem to suggest that the United State's fall from grace is very unlikelly, and the returns of our economy should remain consistant with what we have seen in the past. Britain and Germany's first world status did not change over 100 years (although Germany was certainly hurt severelly by losing two wars). Our first world status should not fade, and our wealth should grow appropriatelly. It would suggest that a bet into a second or third world country ammounts to nothing more than a gamble considering the United States gained little ground on the permier countries of the time, despite what I would imagine was exponentially higher risk. It seems that as of late, many have become enamored with international funds and investments. They maybe wise to think otherwise. The world is not the United States. The world is not a democracy. Case in point: Yukos. Peter Lynch said the fools in any stock market are the foreigners. Internationals are a gamble, and while most of you think yourselves to be a generally conservative group, as I would be if i were retired or very close, your international and developing country mutual funds maybe the most risky thing you could possibly buy.
In 1900 Britain's median income was 20% higher than the United States, Germany's was 60% higher. These were essentially the superpowers of the time. This would seem to suggest that the United State's fall from grace is very unlikelly, and the returns of our economy should remain consistant with what we have seen in the past. Britain and Germany's first world status did not change over 100 years (although Germany was certainly hurt severelly by losing two wars). Our first world status should not fade, and our wealth should grow appropriatelly. It would suggest that a bet into a second or third world country ammounts to nothing more than a gamble considering the United States gained little ground on the permier countries of the time, despite what I would imagine was exponentially higher risk. It seems that as of late, many have become enamored with international funds and investments. They maybe wise to think otherwise. The world is not the United States. The world is not a democracy. Case in point: Yukos. Peter Lynch said the fools in any stock market are the foreigners. Internationals are a gamble, and while most of you think yourselves to be a generally conservative group, as I would be if i were retired or very close, your international and developing country mutual funds maybe the most risky thing you could possibly buy.