Sure, it’s shorter, but is it really a summary of my comment, or just a more technical explanation?
My comment tries to teach via example, while theirs tries to teach using math. I chose my method because it’s the most accessible to people who aren’t math-inclined, but also because it takes the least cognitive effort to understand, which is an important quality for a social media comment to have nowadays.
Besides, you obviously don’t have to read the whole table (you already know how to count to 25). Just scan the right column to see what it’s doing differently.
Europe had been moving towards the slaughterhouse for years, and by 1914 a conflict was all but inevitable—that, at least, is the argument often made in hindsight. Yet at the time, as Niall Ferguson, a historian, noted in a paper published in 2008, it did not feel that way to investors. For them, the first world war came as a shock. Until the week before it erupted, prices in the bond, currency and money markets barely budged. Then all hell broke loose. “The City has seen in a flash the meaning of war,” wrote this newspaper on August 1st 1914.
Apart from this, nothing in the article is worth reading.
Investors have their heads buried in there arses or rather in the charts and balance sheets. I think they delude themselves into believing that by buying selling what essentially amounts to promises, they think they are doing important work.
The only reason all that industry exists is because the government keeps devaluing and taxing our savings. The day we create an asset with easy transactions and that doesn’t devalue, with ease of exchange, they’ll be out on the street.
Could financial markets once again be underpricing the risk of a global conflict? In the nightmare scenario, the descent into a third world war began two years ago, as Russian troops massed on the Ukrainian border.
These idiots forgot Russia annexed Crimea a decade ago.
And at the time they moved fast enough and the Ukrainian government was inept and the military untrained and underequipped to do anything about it. That’s why the status quo was accepted like that.
In the first days of the Ukraine war a lot of western leaders were rather sceptical of Ukraines chance to defend itself and more than happy to write them off and accept a new order, if it doesn’t interfere with the Russia business.
Something similiar can also be seen from the US in WW2, were before Pearl Harbor it seemed the US was mostly accepting and seeing how to deal with a new world order, with Europe under Nazi control.
To them the danger never arises from any status quo or a quick change of status. Only a continued long lasting changing process is what they fear and get troubled by.
I remember it being graffitti’d at Wean Hall at Carngie Mellon circa 1990. (about half way down architect’s leap for fellow CMU-nies, around fifth floor maybe?).
files.catbox.moe
Oldest