Ancient Rome 3D - Modern Rome Virtual Reality Or Virtually A Reality
On a more sanguine note, let's take a break from the world economy and look at one of Google's latest achievements - visualization software that allows us to look into one of the ancient world's greatest civilizations. Twenty years ago access to this type of research would have required a $40 million computer and a roomful of brainiacs. Now, we get it for free. Thank you Google.
Was that enough of a break from the world economy? I'm going to end this post with a little less sanguine perspective. A friend of mine who runs money for one of the largest financial institutions in the solar system just sent me a document titled The Case for Global Equity Diversification. It is from their Strategic Thinking series. (The same strategic thinking that ran the company off of a cliff.) He wanted me to see the quality of their research. Or lack thereof. What really caught my eye was the report's introduction by Fareed Zakaria. For those of you who don't know, Zakaria is a media talking head. In the report Zakaria is introduced as one of the 100 leading public intellectuals in the world. That's news to me. But in today's world, we have a systemic issue with people making claims of their abilities only to be found out as being quite fallable like the rest of us.
Zakaria's introduction to this 'invest globally' pump centers around his perspective that a great tectonic shift is taking place in the world economy. Only the third such shift that the world has seen in the last five hundred years. (I think the first two were the advent of the chocolate chip cookie and the invention of the Xbox 360. Notice advent was used to describe chocolate chip cookies because they are a holy experience. Feel free to email me your favorite recipe.) The shift he writes about is taken from his book The Post-American World. It's basically a thesis for economic decoupling. And, just like the research it introduces in The Case for Global Equity Diversification, it's equally fallacious.
I could have saved Zakaria a lot of wasted typing and the buyers of his book a lot of wasted reading. Here's a more accurate portrayal of reality. And, since we are talking about Rome, we will use it to make our point.
Rome did not fall at the hands of its citizens but instead at the hands of elitists who cared little for society. Elitists who robbed Rome's citizens and society for personal gain. Of course, they robbed Rome by legal means. And, it was most assuredly called free markets backed up by laws of the state.
Rome was every bit the equal of the United States today. It was a symbol of incredible human achievement. It was the most far-reaching and impactful economic civilization the world had ever seen. At least one credible analysis concludes global wealth peaked for over one thousand years with the fall of Rome. Think about that. One thousand years of no net new wealth creation. Even if it were only five hundred years or fifty years it would be a very significant statistic. The economic impact that Rome had on the rest of the world was obviously beyond comprehension and staggering. Zakaria has written an intellectual thesis at the exact moment it has become a complete untruth. It is akin to buying internet stocks in March of 2000. So, the case for global equities is what? China, India, Dubai and Russia are screaming buys just because their stock prices have collapsed? How often have we heard that one in the last year? What quantitative data supports that their economies are recovering? Please, do tell. And, where is the book of truth that guarantees their economies will recover?
I'm not predicting one thousands years of economic malaise as happened with the fall of Rome. Not even in the same galaxy. What I am saying is that 'emerging markets' is a marketing term coined by Wall Street so that we would feel comfortable putting our investments in the shithole economies of the world. Economies that are opaque, corrupt and repressive. But economies that offered Wall Street outsized profits.
Here's something from a little different strategic thinking series. It's not based on happy hopes, conflicts of interest and fantasy. It's based on a hard reality. As much as 50-60% of the global GDP is directly tied to the United States economy. 75% of global debt lies outside of the United States. That equation does not compute. That is, unless you studied the same new math Wall Streeters studied to create Frankenstein finance. Emerging markets are likely to be mired in the same mess they were mired in before they were coined emerging markets. What were they called before emerging markets? Undeveloped economies? High risk economies? Dictatorships? Economies unwilling to embrace reform and transparency? Because that is what they are likely to be called again.
The Case for Global Equity Diversification is based on opinions and not on sustainable measured data. And, so is Zakaria's book. How ironic one is used to introduce the other.
Was that enough of a break from the world economy? I'm going to end this post with a little less sanguine perspective. A friend of mine who runs money for one of the largest financial institutions in the solar system just sent me a document titled The Case for Global Equity Diversification. It is from their Strategic Thinking series. (The same strategic thinking that ran the company off of a cliff.) He wanted me to see the quality of their research. Or lack thereof. What really caught my eye was the report's introduction by Fareed Zakaria. For those of you who don't know, Zakaria is a media talking head. In the report Zakaria is introduced as one of the 100 leading public intellectuals in the world. That's news to me. But in today's world, we have a systemic issue with people making claims of their abilities only to be found out as being quite fallable like the rest of us.
Zakaria's introduction to this 'invest globally' pump centers around his perspective that a great tectonic shift is taking place in the world economy. Only the third such shift that the world has seen in the last five hundred years. (I think the first two were the advent of the chocolate chip cookie and the invention of the Xbox 360. Notice advent was used to describe chocolate chip cookies because they are a holy experience. Feel free to email me your favorite recipe.) The shift he writes about is taken from his book The Post-American World. It's basically a thesis for economic decoupling. And, just like the research it introduces in The Case for Global Equity Diversification, it's equally fallacious.
I could have saved Zakaria a lot of wasted typing and the buyers of his book a lot of wasted reading. Here's a more accurate portrayal of reality. And, since we are talking about Rome, we will use it to make our point.
Rome did not fall at the hands of its citizens but instead at the hands of elitists who cared little for society. Elitists who robbed Rome's citizens and society for personal gain. Of course, they robbed Rome by legal means. And, it was most assuredly called free markets backed up by laws of the state.
Rome was every bit the equal of the United States today. It was a symbol of incredible human achievement. It was the most far-reaching and impactful economic civilization the world had ever seen. At least one credible analysis concludes global wealth peaked for over one thousand years with the fall of Rome. Think about that. One thousand years of no net new wealth creation. Even if it were only five hundred years or fifty years it would be a very significant statistic. The economic impact that Rome had on the rest of the world was obviously beyond comprehension and staggering. Zakaria has written an intellectual thesis at the exact moment it has become a complete untruth. It is akin to buying internet stocks in March of 2000. So, the case for global equities is what? China, India, Dubai and Russia are screaming buys just because their stock prices have collapsed? How often have we heard that one in the last year? What quantitative data supports that their economies are recovering? Please, do tell. And, where is the book of truth that guarantees their economies will recover?
I'm not predicting one thousands years of economic malaise as happened with the fall of Rome. Not even in the same galaxy. What I am saying is that 'emerging markets' is a marketing term coined by Wall Street so that we would feel comfortable putting our investments in the shithole economies of the world. Economies that are opaque, corrupt and repressive. But economies that offered Wall Street outsized profits.
Here's something from a little different strategic thinking series. It's not based on happy hopes, conflicts of interest and fantasy. It's based on a hard reality. As much as 50-60% of the global GDP is directly tied to the United States economy. 75% of global debt lies outside of the United States. That equation does not compute. That is, unless you studied the same new math Wall Streeters studied to create Frankenstein finance. Emerging markets are likely to be mired in the same mess they were mired in before they were coined emerging markets. What were they called before emerging markets? Undeveloped economies? High risk economies? Dictatorships? Economies unwilling to embrace reform and transparency? Because that is what they are likely to be called again.
The Case for Global Equity Diversification is based on opinions and not on sustainable measured data. And, so is Zakaria's book. How ironic one is used to introduce the other.
<< Home