You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #21: depends on how you define "crisis" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. depends on how you define "crisis"
but the last pretty significant one prior to this was the tech bubble collapse.

heck, i work with a cop (another bubble follower) who watched his portfolio go from 700k to 150k

and i didn't say this was or wasn't the most serious economic crises since the great depression. it ARGUABLY is. and of course the great depression, which anybody who lIVED through will say was far worse, was not the end of the US or the end of capitalism. quite the opposite, actually.

as for the world-wide nature, i most definitely have noticed this. as a trader, over the years, it's become clear that "diversification" via many foreign equities is not diversification at all, since the markets are FAR FAR more correlated than they were 20 yrs ago.

this is due to a # of things, but imo mostly due to ETF's allowing international access, some FOREX hijinx, and the opening of easy access to foreign markets to foreign trader. heck, i've traded HSI (hong kong) and Nikkei Futures many times.

fwiw, when the market was in full euphoria mode, it was *i* who was amongst the most bearish. god knows i wasn't buying real estate. i was waiting for the crash to buy (i bought a smaller house in 1999 and ended getting a VERY nice return, selling it at a pretty good time).

was the black thursday crash of 1987 part of a normal "cyclical boom and bust"? not by most definitions of "normal", and god knows in 1987, MANY "credible economists" were wrong about the implications.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC