MARC FABER on Lateline Business
By Barry Ritholtz - August 30th, 2009, 9:54AM
August 26, 2009
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
Comments
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
August 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
He just loves to hate bankers and the FED. He just loves to predict the ultimate collapse of the world as we know it. He’s probably right and that’s the thing that sucks the most.
Having just finished A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickins what struck me was how incredibly bad things were allowed to get before rebellion ocured. One may complain about the wealth gap and the destruction of the middle class but things were a thousand times worse than they are now before rebellion occurred then.
August 30th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
In fact, things were not all that bad in France in 1789. The rule to remember is that oppressed folk never revolt or rebel. Revolutions occur only when life is getting better at a rapid rate, and some want it to get better at an even more rapid rate. The easiest way to remember this is that the Negro civil rights movement did not ahappen in the 1920′s when the Klan ruled. It occurred in the 1960s, after many Blacks had moved north and had well-paying factory jobs. (Remember factories?) And it occured fifteen to twenty years after the US military already had been desegregated.
Plus Martin Luther King was very well off financially. That’s another rule. Ever revolution in history was lead by a nobleman or member of the wealthy elite, who wasn’t as elite as he wanted to be. Peasants never rebel, and no revolution has ever been lead by a starving peasant. There is no exception to this rule. For example, Lenin grew up in a home with six full-time servants.
It’s always a mistake to learn history from fiction. and Dickens in particular is totally wrong.
Learning history from novels is even worse than picking stocks based on Dickens’ s novels.
It’s a pity than the overwhelming majority of Americans know nothing about any event that happened earlier than today. For example, Obama is repeating Vietnam in Afghanistan, because he never has read about what happened in Vietnam..
August 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Very interesting thank’s Jan. I find history very interesting but it’s not a strong point of mine. I will definitely try to look up a more reliable source than Dickens about the French Revolution. I fully appreciate that his was a sentimental style bent on eliciting an emotional response more than a thoughtful one. The influence of his writing can of course not be overestimated nevertheless.
August 31st, 2009 at 2:59 am
Jan-You are absolutely right.Here are some more instances:
The Indian revolution for freedon was led by Gandhi, who belonged to the elite.The catalyst was his being thrown out the first class carriage of a train.
The Pakistani freedom struggle was led by M A Jinnah, who belonged to the top 0.1% category of taxpayers called “super taxpayers” of British India
Mao belonged to a land owning family in China
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Gandhi and probably Jinnah as well as many other “leaders” of struggles were not in fact leading, but following until change was inevitable, and either jumped ahead of the pack as figureheads or were put there by people seeking to manage the change.