QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: VrankLast year I've visited China, Russia, Belarus, and 9 East-European countries, former members of the Warschau pact. I got quite interested in the phenomenon communism earlier the year after bumping into Karl Marx' grave in London (just before FA-Cup match between Fulham and Leyton Orient, but there is no connection whatsoever). I ordered some books on Amazon (not possible in a communistic system) and took the train to visit all those countries reading those books. Altough intellectual levels are high in all those countries (not just quant, but in art, chess, literature, etc...), all countries suffer from communistic history. It's very frustrating to see that despite the high intelectual level, non of the countries was able to develop anything good but drug-driven sportsmen. Maybe that's a bit to strong to just state on a quant forum, but I really think that the communist experiment failed from South-America to Asia and East-Europe. It just cannot be coincidence.To be honest, I do see the theoretical points reading the books. The reason why is didn't work out is human behaviour which gives a positive utility to power...By the way, that doesn't make democracy as a "winning" experiment. It still or again has to prove itself.The reason communism doesn't/won't work is because it is Godless and Christians are persecuted for their faith. Quite simple really.Yes Tj, I agree, "Quite simple"

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyThe current age in America could be termed the "post Columbus" age which is currently around 600 years old. It has benefited from been a county that was covered in “unowned” natural resources. To collect and harvest these resources workers were needed. This set up a situation unique in the Christian era where work was plentiful and money could be made by many who otherwise would not have had any opportunities. Many people did and will leave a country because of political reasons and this will probably always happen, but the question is where will they go in the future.By the second half of the 20 century American "post Columbus" resources were no longer "unowned" and were starting to decline. So a question is when will the "post Columbus" age end. Africa and the Middle East have far more "unowned" natural resources. It is the ability to own them in a market sense - the absense of communism - that makes them useful here.

Africa and the Middle East also have malaria and a profound lack of water.

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyBy the second half of the 20 century American "post Columbus" resources were no longer "unowned" and were starting to decline. So a question is when will the "post Columbus" age end. At some level, the "post Columbus" era has ended. Manufacturing is less than 15% of GDP in the U.S. and at similar (somewhat higher) levels in Western Europe. Total energy consumption is around 10% of GDP in the U.S and I would assume its less in Europe. Activities tied to physical natural resources are being supplanted by those tied to non-physical resources. Industries such as healthcare, financial services, entertainment operate on the ownership of less tangible resources (intellectual property, brands, and labor pools).QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyWhen will the immigration tide turn. Recently it has turned in Ireland where the "illitarate (sic) idiots" have decided to stay home and more people immigrated to the country than the reverse. There are signs that the same "illitarate (sic) idiots" from China and India will do likewise at some time in the 21'st century. So my question is when would we expect to see this happen. Twenty years, fifty years ?Andy Grove (former CEO of Intel) believed that a Ph.D. should come with an automatic citizenship for foreign-born students -- that if the best and the brightest are willing to come to a country for education, then the country should do everything in its power to entice them to stay. I do fear, for the U.S., that the combined effects of xenophobia, erosion of the American brand, and rising standards in India and China will mean less immigration of the intelligent.The interesting question is can countries "import" people without importing their bodies? That is by outsourcing/offshoring a firm in one country profits from the labor pool in another country. Yes, the mother country loses some jobs to outsourcing, but company and country may gain a competitive edge in a global marketplace. In a competitive winner-takes-all marketplace, outsourcing can readily bring in far more in incremental revenues and profits to a country than it loses from outsourced jobs. On can argue that geography is becoming far less important as the economy becomes more tied to what can be extracted from people's minds rather than countries' lands. Certainly, all of us at Wilmott are equadistant in logical space despite vast distances in geographic space.Perhaps immigration is not as important although I still think that importing brains is good and that importing labor will help developed countries cope with the horrible retiree liabilities imposed by their aging demographics.QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillySo I think the politics of the situation are not as important as people think they are. It is more about opportunity. People will go where the opportunities arise. As long as people are “treated” as they believe they deserve and can earn money then their will be an attraction.America is a democracy and a land of opportunity, but life has shown very little can be taken for granted. Time will tell if it was the democracy that people desired or they just wanted “to make a buck”.Yes, the politics are not that important. People seek opportunity which could be either financial, spiritual, or both. Yet, democratic countries tend to offer more opportunity because they tend to be more pluralistic, more accepting of non-mainstream, and more individualistic. But, as you say, very little can be taken for granted and the tyranny of the majority can easily rise in a democracy to squash dissent and alternative lifestyles.It is the ready ability to try and profit (or try and fail) that creates economic growth in developed countries. The developed countries live on the edge of the economic known world. They don't know where the next innovation in products, services, materials, business processes, productivity, business models, etc. will come from. Finding the next increment in economic performance would seem to require private ownership of resources, stable rule-of-law, and permissive regulatory structures. These conditions are most often found in free-market democracies.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerA "market" is transfer of ownership rights by auction. Communism is transfer of ownership rights by political/military strategy. So yes, the second precludes the first.indeed, isn't there stuff about "controlling the means of production" in communist theory

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asi ... 47.eceHmmm Great place China

QuoteOriginally posted by: playerhttp://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1834347.eceHmmm Great place Chinaindeed, we have a whole thread devoted to the greatness of china.....

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: VrankLast year I've visited China, Russia, Belarus, and 9 East-European countries, former members of the Warschau pact. I got quite interested in the phenomenon communism earlier the year after bumping into Karl Marx' grave in London (just before FA-Cup match between Fulham and Leyton Orient, but there is no connection whatsoever). I ordered some books on Amazon (not possible in a communistic system) and took the train to visit all those countries reading those books. Altough intellectual levels are high in all those countries (not just quant, but in art, chess, literature, etc...), all countries suffer from communistic history. It's very frustrating to see that despite the high intelectual level, non of the countries was able to develop anything good but drug-driven sportsmen. Maybe that's a bit to strong to just state on a quant forum, but I really think that the communist experiment failed from South-America to Asia and East-Europe. It just cannot be coincidence.To be honest, I do see the theoretical points reading the books. The reason why is didn't work out is human behaviour which gives a positive utility to power...By the way, that doesn't make democracy as a "winning" experiment. It still or again has to prove itself.The reason communism doesn't/won't work is because it is Godless and Christians are persecuted for their faith. Quite simple really.Yes Tj, I agree, "Quite simple"Listen, doreilly, you're starting to sound like my third grade teacher ...