I interpreted Wab's comment as refererring more to the post-WWII boom and its continued existence well into this century. After all, isn't it Pax Britannia Americana?
Again, some probably special circumstances. Do you see the destruction of large industrial/commercial economies that need rebuilding happening to keep the US output consumed? Even if it happened would the US be manufacturing the goods that are required or would that be China?
I suppose that George might be sending the occupation forces out again but will they generate enough destruction and the right kind of it to require more US produced goods and services? Can you keep the economy afloat on producing new armoured HummVees and Presidential Medals of Failure?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3406-2004Dec15.html
It'd be interesting to see some studies attempting to sort out the contributing factors.
Actually, so would I. I'll have to keep my eyes open for it but I'm soon to be taking a break for the holidays. I am dragging along Bernstein's
The Birth of Plenty to fill in odd blocks of time so perhaps he's got something to say about it or perhaps one of the entries in the bibliography might.
For example, despite its recent drop and the euro's rise, I believe the dollar is still the world's most widely-held & widely-counterfeited currency. (No doubt buried in mattresses the world over, and imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery.)
I wonder for how many years after the US GDP had passed that of Britain were pounds sterling in the same position? In 1910 I imagine that what you state above was probably true for the pound. That would have been approximately 30 years after the US GDP passed that of Britain. There's a lot of inertia in human systems and they don't generally change linearly.
I also suspect that the U.S. stock market has more legislative disclosure controls (burdens?) than the next-biggest three countries combined.
I think that shows more of lack of understanding on your part than any lack of market oversight in other countries. The oversight in the majority of the OECD countries is very similar though the exact rules do differ. I would suggest that the rules in play in places like China and other emerging markets are no worse than those in play in the US up until the Great Depression. Those returns from 1870-1930 under little to no oversight seem to be used in a quite popular retirement calculation tool.
new "emerging markets" like Russia, Japan, & China.
If you honestly think that Japan is an "emerging market" then you must also not be considering any other market as "developed" since the GNP per capita for it is higher than any other country other than Switzerland (don't worry the US is somewhere in the top 20). Or do you mean that Switzerland is the only non-emerging market?
Perhaps people investing in America are just seeking more opportunity, stability, and a more level playing field than is currently available in their home country.
Perhaps they are or perhaps they like a rational investor are diversifying across national markets. I'm not betting against the US but I'm also not overweighting my bet for it either. Why do some people (including apparently Nords) take it as "anti-American" to be suggesting that diversifying across national markets is a prudent thing? Is it just nationalism or patriotism? ("Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." ~George Bernard Shaw)
(Don't take it personally, Hyper, no offense implied or intended.)
Interesting that you would use such a backhanded personal comment trying to pass itself off as a non-personal comment. Are you really wanting to discuss issues or are you wanting to score "points" in some internet discussion board pissing contest?
