|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The First Bank of the United States (1700s?) and the Second Bank of
the United States (1817) were established by Congress to provide a
sound currency and, I think, manage the banking system. Both crashed
and burned. The Federal Reserve system was not a new or innovative
concept.
From: Charles Meyer <chaze@xxxxxxxx>
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, February 22, 2008, 10:53:01 AM
Subject: [RT] Download Free Elliott Wave Theorist (normally priced at $29)
Of course there was no Federal Reserve System too until
1913....
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:52:51 -0800
Code 2 <Code2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> You're correct that there were no mutual funds in the
>1920s, but there
> were "investment trusts" that functioned and were
>marketed in a
> similar way. Many used leverage. The investment trusts
>were
> absolutely decimated by the early 1930s and individual
>investors
> shunned fund-like investments until, I believe, the
>1960s.
>
> Certainly the level of globalization wasn't there in the
>1910s and
> 1920s. However, I think globalization can bite
>investors in the butt,
> because the markets are so interconnected that
>disruptions move
> throughout markets as we saw in January. Inter-market
>diversification
> is not as effective as it used to be. Before the Panic
>of 1819,
> economic crises and depressions were largely regional
>(such as Ohio
> bank failures or depressions in New England). I think
>1819-1821 was
> the first depression with a nationwide scope. The Great
>Depression
> crossed international borders in a big way for the first
>time and
> affected not only the U.S., but its trade partners like
>Canada and
> Britain. Today, the intertwining of markets means the
>impact from a
> serious disruption (and I'm not suggesting there will be
>one) would be
> very pervasive.
>
>
>
>From: BobsKC <bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Friday, February 22, 2008, 7:35:38 AM
> Subject: [RT] Download Free Elliott Wave Theorist
>(normally priced at $29)
>
> Just Prector .. He's been predicting doom all through
>out the bull
> market we've been in including through nearly all of the
>tech bubble
> which would have wiped out most people following his
>advice. He now
> admits to under-estimating the length of wave C but only
>after no one
> had any money left who had been believers. His view is
>that even
> though the market makeup changes, people do not change
>but even that
> is flawed because when he looks at the conditions in
>1929, the people
> in that market had an entirely different geographical
>and financial
> makeup than today. There was no one world market.. no
>world economy,
> no ADR's. Stocks were being purchased for .10 on the
>dollar. I
> wasn't alive then but I don't believe there were mutual
>funds. So,the
> players are vastly different, the game is different and
>the rules are
> different but he doggedly sticks to his theme that it's
>all the same
> and history will repeat itself. A view that has been
>extremely costly
> to his followers.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> At 12:39 AM 2/22/2008, you wrote:
> Does this mean you're not a Prector fan or not an Elliot
>Wave fan?
>
> Just curious if there is a distinction, and if so, why?
>
> Thanks
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtraders/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtraders/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:realtraders-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:realtraders-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|