Jabberwocky said:
welsh said:
Ok, so Hitler might get credit for World War 2. But perhaps not. Maybe World War 2 would have started anyway. A showdown between the Russians and the Germans was in the works regardless of Hitler- and if Germany and the USSR went to war, then France would have come in, than the UK would have come in, and the US...etc.
Tsssk, seriously, welsh, you should know better than this. Time isn't pretending to be a historiographic view of who had an influence on history without anyone else possibly having it, it isn't a "what if"-award.
True that. But only question here lies in the thesis that "Hitler causes World War 2." What Time does with that, I don't really care.
I mean the Man of the Year award is kind of like the Oscar- who was the biggest most important person this year.
In that way, I agree with you that the WWW is a lot of BS. And defining the web by the people who contribuite... I ain't buying it either.
It sounds like Time copped out.
I suspect World War 2 would have happened regardless of Hitler.
Hell, what if Einstein never existed? Wouldn't someone else invent his theories? Why the hell not? Smart enough people for it have come and gone, he just happened to be first. So even if you don't discount the "what if"-scenario, and I do, it applies to Heiny as well.
I am less certain of this. Perhaps, but perhaps much later. World War 2 might be explained by the massive forces of history at work. But Einstein's theories? Normally it takes a great leap of imagination to make meaningful expansion of our notions of science. Yes, there are a lot of theories out there, but most don't live very long until they are replaced with better views. Yet the great thinkers stand out because of the novelty of their contributions and their ability to expand science. I mean, how many Newtons and Galileos are there? The forces that drive such contributions often lie both in the scientific world of academics but more importantly, in the imagination of great thinkers- making their contributions more uniquely their own.
So yes, perhaps Einstein's theories might have been discovered by others- but how long would it take? Remember science accumulates over time- one theoretical contribution makes possible the next- and so the great thinkers of today ride on the shoulders of those that came before. Would our notions of science, math, the cosmos, physics- have reached the same level today without Einstein? Well, had Einstein come earlier would we be at a more advanced stage?
That second question is a bit more interesting. Rather than think of the development of science along a continium of steady evolution, I suspect that science evolves in leaps caused by paradigm shifts. Those moments serve as critical junctures in our ways of thinking, revolutionizing that which came before it.
How many people have made such important revolutionary shifts during the 20th Century? Politically, I would think perhaps Lenin leading the Bosheviks might count, except he dies early and communism craps out after 60 years. Oppenheimer might have built the atomic bomb and ushered in the nuclear age, but he more clearly builds on the findings of prior scientists than Einstein, nor did he have such a wider effect than Einstein. Perhaps Pope John Paul II for his contribution in ending communism and his outreach to other faiths, but Pope John Paul II was pretty conservative- not that much changed.
In the sciences, literature, politics- there are damn few people that stand up to Einstein. Ghandi comes close- not only for India, the non-aligned movemment, de-colonization, and the non-violence. But Ghandi dies early and I doubt he would have succeeded but for Nehru.
welsh said:
This crime was less a consequence of race than economics. For years New York had been bad financial situation. Anyway, Dinkins failed. Giullianni, for his part, succeeded- he reduced crime by getting tough and strengthening the police (see "41 shots") but also giving a boost to the cities economy. Now New York is the safest city in the US. Bloomburg might be taking credit for it, but that's bullshit. It was Guilianni that pulled off those reforms.
And it would not surprise me that in a city the size of New York, the reduction in crime rates and the improved quality of life have saved more people than Osama, the prick, killed on 9-11.
Did all this happen in one year?
No, but then Oscar winners also get an award not for the movies they did in the past but what their careers have achieved. Certainly Gulianni was there at the World Trade Bombings in a way that W wasn't. I mean if W illustrates how incompetent the Republicans have been, Gulianni might suggest how capable they might be.
Would you argue that the Iraq invasion or invasion of Aghanistan *weren't* a direct consequence of 9/11? Methinks it was already obvious or at least imagined when Time declared its man that this would have some longterm consequences.
The Afghanistan was, but generally speaking its uncertain the long-term consequences of that war. Would it be a short punitive war, a war of imperial scope, or a long drawnout quagmire? Doesn't matter. Overall, Afghanistan has been cheap in human lives as colonial wars go. The same for Iraq- we've been there longer than the US was in World War 2 and its only cost us less than 3K guys? In human lives, that's pretty cheap (and notiably were the Vietnam comparison generally fails).
Did 9/11 have to lead to Iraq? No. That relationship was drawn by W using the surge in popularity and support to start a war that was, at least back then, tangential to 9/11 at best.
Y our argumentation doesn't really cut it here, welshman.
Which one? I am not sure how this relates to Einstein being man of the century.
As bad as Afghanistan and Iraq are today, they pale in comparison to what has happened in Congo either recently or back in the 1960s. Rwanda was more bloody than Afghanistan, and no one cares. Pol Pot was worse that Saddam, but no one remembers him. Vietnam was worse than Iraq- and yet that seems a distant memory as well.
Most of these wars are costly side-shows of little importance. The big conflicts- World War 1 (a war without heroes- even Wilson's liberal agenda falls flat), World War 2? Some heroes there- but which do you give the trophy too- Roosevelt? Stalin? Churchill? The Cold War (which can incorporate all the little proxy wars and conflicts involving superpowers)- who are your heroes?
Then look at the big movements of the time-
The conflict between capitalism and communism
the conflcit between democracy and dictatorship
the expansion of civil rights
the spreading of modern medicine
global development (or lack thereof)
de-colonization
the creation of global governance through the UN system.
late industrialization
the creation of an information based economy (a ton of crap that).
Who are your heroes? Who are the great minds.
At least in the expansion of science you can look to Einstein as being one of the pivotal figures.
welsh said:
Dude, weren't you contributing to Fallout Wiki?
I mean.... they are talking about you here.
I think they're talking more about the people that actually think "internet celebrity" means something.
How much time do you spend on the internet Mr. "I have the biggest post count on NMA"? I mean, considering your dedication to the Order, to Fallout, and god knows what else- does this mean something or is it all a load of crap? And if it means something doesn't everyone who do that kind of crap also mean something in terms of the "great movements of history"?
Ten years ago I would have disputed that the internet had ushered in a new economic revolution. Now? I am less certain of that without more reading.
welsh said:
Face it bud, there is a tremendous shortage of important big shots this year.
V.V. Putin?
Would be dictator of a has-been superpower with visions of greatness. Give him a couple prizes for reasserting dictatorship and corruption and authoritarian rule. Alas, trying to whack a few people through poisoning would probably disqualify him.
better it to Lance Armstrong for showing the world what a guy with one testicle can do. Except he might have cheated.
welsh said:
In otherwords, the thing about bubbles is that there are market distortions driven by often irrational market forces (speculations). To gamble in the short-term on a bubble economy is precarious at best for the individual invester. But the smart investor recognizes the bubble and is careful to maintain a diversified portfolio.
That said, a bubble could also mean that a lot more money gets invested in a company offering the company a short-term increase in short-term capital necessary for the company to invest in new products, thereby initiating a new product life cycle (but that's being optimistic). My point rather is that bubbles are generally irrational, even if they seem to occur with regularity. Yet in the long-term even a bubble might be good for an economy- if you take a long enough view and invest wisely.
Somehow your whole argumentation here doesn't strike me as a positive thing. Are you actually defending the fact that our economy has a surplus that is reinvested into meaningless sections of the economy that have no return? Do you seriously think that on the way long term that's a good thing?[/quote]
I am not so sure that those investments are meaningless. I am also not arguing that bubbles are necessarily a "good thing" either. All I am arguing is that they are irrational and that a company that issues stock during a bubble gets the benefit of more capital. What it does with taht capital is up to them.
Are these necessarily of "no return"? I am not sure.
Added capital may be invested poorly. Surely the "bust of a bubble" retards marget growth for many of the same irrational reasons that creates the bubbles in the first place.
What I did point out was that given the big distortion of the bubble and the burst of the bubble- if you look at the market value both before and after the bubble effects it shows that corporate value has gone up significantly over the long-term. That's about it.
Public corporations are valued in two basic ways-
(1) is stock value- How much are people willing to pay to own a share of stock in the company.
How does this mix with the investor and the bubble?
Let's say you bought a share of stock in a company in 1993 for $30 bucks. Over the course of the next ten years the stock splits a few times so that your one share becomes $ 90 and then splits so you have three shares at $30. Lets say this happens twice- so that you know have 6 shares of $30 rather than 1 share of $180. Now lets say that the average share is selling at $80 and you're expecting a stock split. Instead the market takes a dive, and you stock is now valued at $20 a share.
Yes, you've taken a hit in the short term- your asset value fell from $480 (6 X80) to $120 (6 X $20) or 1/4 your value. But then over 10 years you have also quadrupled your original investment- which is pretty freaking good.
In the short term you've been burnt, but in the long term you've performed pretty damn well.
Furthermore if the assets are artificially undervalued, than changes are when the panic passes and people get real again, your value will go back up. maybe it will rise to $30 or $40 a share- either way, things are good.
(2) Value of corporations is also measured in asset value. This can either be good for you or totally fuck you. In 1997 when the Asian Financial Crisis hit, many South Korean companies had taken advantage of easy capital to make lots of crappy investments and then had gotten more capital to sustain those assets. That's fucked up.
But a smart company would invest itself well so that it buys productive and valuable assets that have tangible value and potential for future earnings. If the company could liquidate those assets- include business name and reputation- than you'd have the value of a company.
Compare the two- stock value might be lower than actual asset value- in which case the stock is undervalued and should be purchased. Alternatively the stock value might be very high but the assets are crap. You can speculate that consumer demand for that stock will go up based on some of the intangibles of value. But that's risky.
Thing is that when the bubble happens the stock values are often higher than the value of companies. But when the market reaches its low point, the stock may be undervalued.
Regretfully the two values do not correspond.
Kharn, you are assuming that merely because a company's stock is overvalued it means the company is worthless. Not true.
Bubbles remain irrational - because they are driven by investors looking for short term gains who believe that the stock market will improve. They are gamblers who end up losing.
These are not smart investors.
The stock might be overvalued but still valuable because its taken the opportunity to use the added capital to reinvest and purchase new assets. Value might be $120 when the stock value should realistically be $90 reflecting asset value. However, once the panic hits the shares sell out of both good and crappy companies at the same time such that the value of a stock might drop to $20.
The investor who bought at $110 is fucked. But the investor who bought at $30 and sailed with the company through stock splits is still in good shape. The company is, in fact, worth three times the market value of his shares.
The problem for bubbles is that when they break-
(1) lots of people buy stock on debt- and that's really fucking stupid in a bubble economy.
(2) capital is lost on overpriced investments which could be utilized in more profitable and realistic investments
(3) The break of the bubble limits the capital available to even productive and valuable companies.
But hey, that's a consequence of irrational market forces. The trick for a legal system is to make companies more transparent so that they is less risk and less room for irrational speculation. But given the rather inprecise nature of value, I doubt that will ever really be resolved.
