The World Is So Much More Dangerous Than You Think

The Economist ran an article last week with a funny line that caught my attention. "This was supposed to be a stress-free year for the global economy," it read. Now we have dual crises in Japan and the Middle East. "The year without crisis is not to be," it continued.

The year without crisis? I began asking myself: Has there ever been a year without crisis? Have we ever made it 365 days without something really awful happening? I don't think we have. Ever. In the history of human history. Something big, terrifying, and market-moving happens every year without fail:

2011 (so far): Japan earthquake, Middle East uprising.

2010: European debt crisis; BP (NYSE: BP  ) oil spill; flash crash.

2009: Global economy nears collapse.

2008: Oil spikes; Wall Street bailouts; Madoff scandal.

2007: Iraq war surge; beginning of financial crisis.

2006: North Korea tests nuclear weapon; Mumbai train bombings; Israel-Lebanon conflict.

2005: Hurricane Katrina; London terrorist attacks.

2004: Tsunami hits South Asia; Madrid train bombings.

2003: Iraq war; SARS panic.

2002: Post 9/11 fear; recession; WorldCom bankrupt; Bali bombings.  

2001: 9/11 terrorist attacks; Afghanistan war; Enron bankrupt; Anthrax attacks.  

2000: Dot-com bubble pops; presidential election snafu; USS Cole bombed.  

1999: Y2K panic; NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

1998: Russia defaults on debt; LTCM hedge fund meltdown; Clinton impeachment; Iraq bombing. 

1997: Asian financial crisis.

1996: U.S. government shuts down; Olympic park bombing.

1995: U.S. government shuts down; Oklahoma City bombing; Kobe earthquake; Barings Bank collapse.

1994: Rwandan genocide; Mexican peso crisis; Northridge quake strikes Los Angeles; Orange County defaults.

1993: World Trade Center bombing.

1992: Los Angeles riots; Hurricane Andrew.

1991: Real estate downturn; Soviet Union breaks up.

1990: Persian Gulf war; oil spike; recession.

(I'm sure I'm forgetting many big events. This is a partial list at best.)

You get the point. You can draw this exercise out as many years as you like. It's always the same: There's no such thing as a crisis-free year. Ever. Some years are worse than others, but they all bring bad news from time to time. It's just how the world works. History is "one damned thing after another," said historian Arnold Toynbee.

Where people fall into trouble is getting stuck in the mind-set that these crises are one-in-a-million events. The perfect storm. The thousand-year flood. It's bogus. In reality, they're just the normal, common path of history. Sure, no one knows exactly what's coming, but something is always coming. What? We don't know. When? Just wait. Bad stuff is invariably lurking around the corner. Put that in stone.

You can look at this a few ways. One, realizing that crises happen every year highlights the need to use debt sparingly, have an emergency fund, keep your resume updated, hug your loved ones, all that stuff. Give yourself room for error. There's the old saying, "No one ever dies wishing they saved more money." Maybe true, but plenty live wishing they had.

Another (better) way to look at this is realizing how much economies can prosper in the face of constant misery. During the 21-year period outlined above, real per-capita GDP increased 33%. The Dow increased almost fivefold, before dividends. Companies like Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) and Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) went from niche novelties to global juggernauts. Others like Google (NYSE: GOOG  ) , Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN  ) went from garage projects to billion-dollar organizations. Once you look back at the success business has achieved during crisis after crisis, panics tend to smell more like opportunities. The phrase, "this too shall pass" becomes more realistic. Frank Holmes, CEO of U.S. Global Investors, had a great quote last summer tying this all together:

It's a nonevent for stock markets to swing 15% peak-to-trough every year. That's the average. For emerging markets it's 40% per year. Same for gold stocks. That's what you should expect. It's just what markets do: They fluctuate. This scares so many people. But it's important to realize that when they fall, mean reversion becomes a powerful force. The big money to make is when markets are down. Growth is three times greater in emerging-market economics, but there's three times as much volatility. Don't let that scare you. It's normal. Use the volatility to your advantage. Don't become bitter. Become better.

Got a different take? Share it in the comments section below.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Microsoft. Google and Microsoft are Motley Fool Inside Value selections. Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers pick. Apple and Amazon.com are Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendations. The Fool has written puts on Apple. Motley Fool Options has recommended a bull call spread position on Apple. Motley Fool Options has recommended a diagonal call position on Microsoft. The Fool owns shares of Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (34) | Recommend This Article (59)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 5:29 PM, turtle975 wrote:

    The author makes a good point.

    BTW: I think you should add the earthquake in Haiti to the list.

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 5:32 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Ah, Haiti. I knew I'd forget at least one major one.

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 5:32 PM, pastreet wrote:

    There are always going to be huge changes, and world shattering events. Thats reality. Things don't function in a linear, and overly simplistic format that we would all be so happy with. The spoils go to those who can adapt the quickest. Its an extension of survival of the fittest.

    http:www.compoundingreturns.com

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 6:02 PM, shoemaker17 wrote:

    also forgot to mention Swine Flu and Justin Bieber

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 7:37 PM, PhilBryantCEO wrote:

    There's always a crisis, so don't create excuses for not saving and investing. Sage advice. The sooner you start and the more you save the better off you are as said perfectly here: http://blog.eggnest.com/kick-start-your-nest-egg-early and here: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/03/23/living-below-yo...

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 7:59 PM, knighttof3 wrote:

    Sokol's resignation?

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 8:16 PM, mountaincouger wrote:

    You might add Libya intervention and government shut down to the list soon. And also, food prices in emerging nations are sky rocking, expecting even larger unrest in even other parts of the world in the next two years. As a investor, you can be sure I am trying to hash out a way to invest these things. I also anticipate Iran having the bomb in the next couple of years, something everybody will probably try to steer us away from knowing about it because of the panic. Iran will probably reveal their new toy once the world sentiment has come a little more comfortable with the idea. And I would also add a laundry list of new nations with nuclear bombs in the middle east in the next 5 years, the fact the Saudi is actively engaging other GCC countries and Pakistan on the matter is enough for me. I far one think this will be a very interesting investing period(next 3 years). Also, consider that North Korea has probably more then 8 nuclear bombs by now, and they may experience the worse humanitarian starvation year in 60 years this summer, all the while they are close to a leadership change. North Korea did not have nuclear weapons 10 years ago. So, I think we are really actually living in quite a different situation then the 80's, 90's, or early 00's.

    I am a dooms day kind of of peep, but I try not to over exaggerate either. Rather I am trying to only be a unbiased observer.

  • Report this Comment On March 30, 2011, at 10:21 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Sarah Palin?

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 1:16 AM, kizlo wrote:

    Sichuan earthquake in 2008.

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 3:56 AM, CrankyTexan wrote:

    We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning.

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 6:00 AM, SPARTANBURG wrote:

    I believe that this article should be a "must read" for any new or experienced investor or trader. In a few words it gives more insight to investing than any Discounted Cash Flow formula ever executed.

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 8:52 AM, dfrizzle03 wrote:

    lol good article but i enjoyed reading some of these comments more.

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 9:23 AM, sofpan wrote:

    You must add to the disasters, George Bush Junior government period.-

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 10:57 AM, mtf00l wrote:

    CrankyTexan,

    Awesome reference... =D

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 11:35 AM, lswiger wrote:

    reading posts here is refreshing, realistic people saying things I could believe. Where are the right and left wing nuts, don't they invest?

  • Report this Comment On March 31, 2011, at 2:54 PM, CrankyTexan wrote:

    Thanks, mtf00l

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2011, at 3:56 PM, drborst wrote:

    As usual, real data gives some perspective. Though like Iswiger, I kinda miss the nuts who frequently comment here (really, not even one right winger comment about 1996 being the year the government reopened?)

    That said, some of those don't look so bad to me... was the breakup of the Soviet Union really a crisis? (The thought of it on a list of crises that ends with "middle east uprising" makes me quite hopeful)

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2011, at 3:59 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2011, at 4:00 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    <<"was the breakup of the Soviet Union really a crisis?">>

    Had a feeling that would come up. Crisis? Twenty years later, obviously not. At the time? No one knew what would happen. At any rate, it was disruptive to global markets.

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2011, at 4:02 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Disruptive at the time, that is. Some have proposed that the economic strength of the '90s and early 2000s was largely a factor of Russia entering the globalization economy.

  • Report this Comment On April 01, 2011, at 5:01 PM, drborst wrote:

    Morgan,

    That brings up an interesting point. You wrote

    "Another (better) way to look at this is realizing how much economies can prosper in the face of constant misery."

    Maybe some economies prosper partly because of these 'crises'. I just read something about a concern in Hollywood that much of their film stock is supplied from Japan. And it dawned on me, Hollywood is still using film! Maybe a few more movies will be made digitally as a result of the current Japanese crisis, which could mean a slight uptick in digital movie making equipment investment.

    Though at best, that is a silver lining to a dark event in Japan

    DRB

  • Report this Comment On April 02, 2011, at 11:07 PM, seenitall2 wrote:

    The self-congratulatory comments posted here uniformly miss one key point. The majority of the disasters listed (including some of the natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina) have resulted in the enrichment of a few, while killing and/or impoverishing the many. Part of the recent and ongoing global transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

    Don't you capitalist cheerleaders have any ethical concerns about this?

  • Report this Comment On April 03, 2011, at 7:25 PM, MrChapel wrote:

    @seenitall2

    Ethical concerns? Really? I think you're missing the point in your reply. You should ask the correct question, namely, why did these so-called 'rich' gain more money from these disasters?

    The answer: because either they were the ones with the equipment/experience to help out with these disasters in the aftermath, or somehow, they were involved in them.

    For the former, I can't fault them for making money off of disasters, whether man-made or natural. You mentioned Katrina; where would New Orleans be without the construction companies, the companies that supply said construction companies, the many different companies that aided in the recovery and reconstruction of the damage? The Utopian Ideal is just that, an ideal and an unrealistic one.

    With regards to the latter, they should be tried, once evidence is unearthed in their complicity.

    I find your naivete not even the slightest bit adorable as I assume you're a grownup? The 'poor' you mention? Well, guess what, none of them handed over money to the rich. The rich didn't take from them. They lost whatever they had because of these disasters, whether it was through fire or flood, or by living beyond their means as many did who bought into the whole US housing bubble. The rich invested their money in companies and products that are used and reap the benefits of those investments.

    The transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is a misnomer. The poor (which incidently now encompasses a large swath of the middle class) is mostly due to rising taxes and other costs, not because someone who lost their home due to Katrina had to pay for the Caterpillar shovels to come and clean up the wreckage.

    I live in Europe. I have collective, government-mandated health insurance. My basic insurance package (again, the one I am required by law to have, no ifs or buts about it) has pre-and post-natal care in it. I am male. I am single. I-DO-NOT-NEED-EITHER-AS-I-WILL-NEVER-GET-PREGNANT! My girlfriend, by law, has the same basic insurance and has the same in hers. I pay for something I am not nor ever will use. Explain the logic in that? Oh, btw, my premium jumped 13 percent this year.

    I recently bought a house. Yet, I do not own the ground it's build on. That belongs to the government. I pay for fifty years usage, which is half of the purchase price of the house. I also pay taxes each year on the house. Before I moved into it, I rented. I paid the same taxes on the rental as I do on the purchased property. I pay water-right taxes to the local government, yet I also pay the same taxes to our equivalent of the Federal government.

    Our previous and current government are putting money into an emergency fund for Portugal, Greece, Spain etc. It's not their money, but it's the taxpayers in those countries who have to cough it up so for instance, the Grecians can retire at 53 while here, the retirement age has been raised last year from 65 to 67 and probably will be raised to 70 in the next five years. Yet, there is no money to fund adequate living conditions for our parents who maybe get a bath once a week because there's no money to hire enough personnel to do the job.

    It's easy to say the rich steal from the poor, but instead of spouting off slogans from fifty years ago, maybe you should look at how the rich become rich and why the poor stay poor. Many reasons for the latter, ranging from losing their jobs and not being able to find another one to just plain laziness and a sense of entitlement. But if you truly believe the rich are stealing from the poor, please, show us proof. You brought it up, so the onus of proof is on you. Convince us 'capitalist cheerleaders' (which btw, is a nicer term than what the Soviets used for us).

    BTW, of the two major ideologies of the last century, capitalism and communism, guess which one is all but dead and which one is thriving, even with all the roadblocks governments put up? Here's a hint, the hippies in the sixties lived in them.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2011, at 2:09 PM, actuary99 wrote:

    @seenitall2

    Have you ever considered how the gap in fertility rates between the rich and the poor may be contributing to the growing gap between the rich and poor?

    http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/oesw/newsletters_/dec... (see page 2)

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2011, at 4:07 PM, badnicolez wrote:

    Also neglected to mention the earthquake in Chile last year.

    Just from personal observations, my friends who are "poor" and have "no money" universally are that way as a result of the following factors:

    1 Consistently living beyond their means

    2 Poor career decisions

    3 Lack of ambition/motivation or just plain laziness

    My friends who are "rich" and "have money" universally are that way as a result of the following factors:

    1 Consistently living well below their means

    2 Working at jobs/careers that aren't necessarily their "dream jobs," but keep them because they make good money

    3 Have goals and dreams and concrete plans to achieve them

    When a crisis or economic downturn hits, it hurts more for those who have not planned for any type of safety net.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2011, at 10:36 PM, SendaiKid wrote:

    @MrChapel,

    Good points, mostly. But, just curious, does your girlfriend know that you feel no financial responsibility for pre- or post-natal care when/if you both conceive a child? (I know the insurance will cover it, but you really can't see the logic of both parents sharing the costs of pregnancy?)

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2011, at 11:58 PM, chaz572 wrote:

    @mountaincougar,

    While I agree that there's a frightfully high likelihood that Iran will produce a workable A-bomb in the coming years, I give "Iran will probably reveal their new toy once the world sentiment has come a little more comfortable with the idea" absolutely zero chance of occurring as long as Ahmadinejad remains in power. Maybe --- maaaaaayyyyybe if he falls, the greens take power, and a stable secular government forms that has a much more modern and peaceful world view. If it happens on his watch, I'll give you 100-to-1 that there will be swift action of the CIA / Mossad / Seals type with assassinations and highly targeted from-the-inside destruction. Our best hope is that that succeeds. Because if it fails, all hell will break loose. We might see war like we haven't seen in a generation. Too many powerful governments on this planet are very not OK with Ahmadinejad being allowed to keep his bomb.

  • Report this Comment On April 05, 2011, at 8:28 AM, daphinytsno wrote:

    Lady GAGA .... TWILIGHTERS....and Avatar ..:)

    Wasnt there a saying or belief, that war and in this case disasters too always bring some form of wealth, jobs, and success to many companies and nations?

  • Report this Comment On April 05, 2011, at 8:51 AM, daphinytsno wrote:

    @MrChapel I live in New Orleans, our city is just coming out on the other side and its looking a lot better than before Katrina hit, lots of things were changed and for the better..... You dont own your the land under your house? You rent it, that's like living at a TRAILER PARK here in the U.S., bummer..... Having to bail our P. G. S. there were many benefits to the European Union, but just like the U.S. and her states, there are also a lot of things you're not going to be so fond of.. But in the end, the E.U. has a lot more power than each of the countries by themselves, would be like each state here going out on their own, most of them would go bankrupt within days, others would prosper like Hong Kong or Singapore ...UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.. :)

  • Report this Comment On April 06, 2011, at 1:50 PM, seenitall2 wrote:

    MrChapel's rant can be summarized as "Nothing is worth anything unless it benefits me personally." More a selfish adolescent whine than a code of ethics. But surely not all of you Fools are Libertarians?

    To flesh out what I said earlier about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, see "The Collapse of Globalization" by ex-NY Times writer Chris Hedges--published in several places including http://nocureforthat.org/?p=211 .

    Let me rephrase the question: don't you capitalist cheerleaders have any ethical concerns about profiting from the criminal activity described therein?

  • Report this Comment On April 07, 2011, at 5:26 PM, MrChapel wrote:

    @Sendaikid

    IF our relationship reaches the point where we want to have kids, of course I'm taking my responsibility. No question about that. I'm just illustrating how idiotic government intervention is. Basically, they say, THIS is what is to go into the basic insurance package. Political correctness rules the day so they've forgotten that humanity is made up out of more than only women. Also, remember, this is a package you are forced to have whether or not you're single or have a family. So let's say we have a child together, with the current setup, my girlfriend's insurer will pay for her pre-/post-natal costs. Mine won't but I'll still be paying the premium. The only people I can put on my insurance, are my kids until they're 18.

    @daphinytsno

    Glad to hear that things are looking up for your city. As for the PGIIS countries, well, if you've followed the news, you'll have noticed that last week the Portuguese government stepped down when parliament voted down the austerity measures and now they're asking for an EU bailout. In other words, they want to keep spending other people's money and the rest of the EU has to pay for it. Something that is soon going to be happening in the US too, with states like CA. and NY. approaching nuclear levels of debt and growing numbers of businesses/people leaving those states. Conservative politicians in the Netherlands and Germany, who've been opposed to the growing integration of Europe, are gaining even more ground lately because of this and there's been talk of getting together with Germany and a few of the other healthy EU countries and stepping out into a smaller group, leaving behind the ones who only spend, spend, spend other people's money. The fact that for instance, Greece cooked the books so they could join is playing a large part in that since suspicions are high that this had been done at the direction of the EU parliament and that it's an ongoing process to get a number of other European nations with very weak economies into the EU. Imagine the few remaining healthy nations being outnumbered by broke economies who all want bailout money. How long can that go on until the money is gone and the people revolt?

    @seenitall2

    If you're going to summarize me, please do so correctly, as you now sound like a modern-day news anchor instead of a true journalist like Cronkite or the guys who blew open Watergate.

    In summary, for your benefit, I have no qualms about making money. If there's a disaster and I can help, I will, in any way I can. However, afterwards? When the disaster is over? When the rebuilding starts? If you want my services, you pay for them. Simple as that. Now, if you call that criminal activity, so be it. Personally, what I find criminal is the fact that many NGOs like Oxfam Novib, Warchild and others who, for instance are headquartered here in the Netherlands, not only receive donations from citizens but also government subsidies and tax breaks, manage to rent capital mansions in Amsterdam along one of the most expensive canal streets, pay their directors in excess of US$ 200,000 a yr., furnish them with lavish cars and drivers, offer interest-free loans to buy huge houses and many more 'niceties'.

    A report months after the Indonesian tsunami exposed the fact that almost half of the funds these groups received to help out in that particular event never made it to the people of Indonesia. Of their regular contributions between 60 and 70 percent isn't going to finance their core responsibilities but to salaries of the top execs and things like renting those massively expensive office buildings.

    Maybe you find that business as usual, but to me, that's criminal.

  • Report this Comment On April 08, 2011, at 1:44 AM, MrChapel wrote:

    @seenitall2

    Just checked out that link you posted. Very enlightening, Particularly this:

    We must embrace, and embrace rapidly, a radical new ethic of simplicity and rigorous protection of our ecosystem—especially the climate—or we will all be holding on to life by our fingertips. We must rebuild radical socialist movements that demand that the resources of the state and the nation provide for the welfare of all citizens and the heavy hand of state power be employed to prohibit the plunder by the corporate power elite.

    To summarize, "We must go back to the seventies and eighties of twentieth century, when groups like the Red Brigades and Rote Armee Faktion and others of their ilk, kidnapped and murdered businessmen and military personnel so the uneducated masses will follow in line.

    We must give government total power so they can decide best how resources (both human and immaterial) are used and anyone opposing must be punished.

    We must stop the killing of Gaia because we're a blight on her fair beauty."

    Congratulations, Seenitall2, you (and the writer) sound just like the college kids who formed those terrorist groups back in the seventies. Are you still in college, I wonder? I'm old enough to remember watching the search for Aldo Moro and his subsequent murder and later for General Dozier in Italy. Or the raft of bombings, kidnappings and murders in Germany.

    You (and the writer) want to increase government's already massive power to decide our lives. You want the unwashed masses ie. me and everybody else but not YOU or your like-minded friends, to keep our mouth shut and do as we're told. You and your friends of course, will be the ones telling us what to do as you're so much smarter than us. I think that was called the Eastern Bloc, build around the old Soviet Union.

    I'm old enough to have seen the effects of 'Central Planning' and 'Five Year Plans', like the long lines in front of stores in Moscou, citizens waiting daily to see if they could purchase a loaf of bread or some potatoes. I still remember how the USA had to sent massive loads of grain yearly to the USSR because their crops had withered, because they didn't have enough tractors. All the while, the Soviet military industrial complex was building more and larger weapons systems to bring YOUR philosophy to the rest of the world.

    I wonder, what are you going to call the 'reeducation camps'? Gulags? And where will they be? I presume somewhere inhospitable, like Siberia? Maybe use Alaska?

    As for Earth? The Lady doesn't need our protection. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that conspicuous consumption is the wrong way to go and that everyone who is able, can do with less, but it has to be their choice. However, what I loathe is people claiming Earth is doomed while waving flawed data around.

    Or did you conveniently the controversy about the emails? Or how about the fact that the director of India's climate change agency isn't a scientist at all but an economist and that he conveniently gave UN money to a scientific company of which he happens to be the owner or director also?

    Or let's talk about another big proponent like James Cameron, with his multi-million dollar mansions, his cars, boats etc. who tells the rest of us how we should lower our carbon imprint and continually flies to Brazil to dance with the Indians there, like he and Arnold Schwarzenegger did this week, AGAIN.

    Explain to me, why it is you and your ilk talk about alternative energy sources like windmills and how they can power everything but you're the first ones to object if they're being planned in the area where you live? Greenpeace's Dutch division, along with many local Climate groups always harp on about wind energy but every time the government and energy companies are planning on building a wind farm in the North Sea on our coast, they go all the way to court when they can't get parliament to stop it, claiming it's hazardous to sea life and is visual pollution.

    MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!

    I can go on and on, my friend, like the fact that one of the staunchest proponents of climate change theory believes that eugenics is the way to go to save Earth, ie. that we need to cull the population to a fraction of what it is today so Gaia is in balance. So I'm wondering, will we be opening the old places like Buchenwald et al again? Or will there be new places too if he and his proponents get their way?

    The Earth doesn't need protecting, it can do fine on its own. Man/Woman can do whatever they want, nature will always win. Remember a little thing that happened a few weeks ago? In Japan? How about that tsunami in Indonesia after a seaquake? Or how about further back, a certain meteor that struck the planet?

    Does humanity need to take a step back and look at what they're doing to the flora and fauna? Yes. Do we need to find ways to limit our impact? Again, yes. Do we need to consider our air quality? Yes. However, radicalism, in any form, for any goal is evil and should be stamped out.

    I'm not naive enough to think that anything will convince you of this. It's clear you see people like those here on MF as the enemy, as "The Rich". You're entitled to your opinion and believes. It does make me wonder what you're doing here, on this bastion of evil.

  • Report this Comment On April 08, 2011, at 1:58 AM, MrChapel wrote:

    Oh and seenitall?

    That article? Vague mentions, sweeping generalizations and such? Without actual proof backing it up?

    You'd be laughed out of a court of law.

    IF you really want to proof that your view is the correct one, you will have to provide REAL proof. Like who it is that profits, HOW they do so. You stated the rich steal from the poor. Provide the ways and means they do so. Name names. Show us the way they're doing this.

    Actual, usable proof is required. Not general, sweeping statements based on feelings or thoughts. Or conspiracy theories. Maybe that works in your PoliSci classes at your Ivy League college, but not here. WE deal in facts and figures. So again, I ask you, provide proof of your assertions.

    BTW, it seems you've joined MF only this month, specifically to post a reply to this article? Very telling, indeed.

  • Report this Comment On July 11, 2011, at 11:22 PM, yardsales wrote:

    Reading that list almost made me depressed, but then I am reminded of one of my favorite's quotes of all time: Without struggle, there can be no progress. What is life without struggle and accomplishes? What is life wihout successes and failures? We live to experience different things and emotions. When the world is too much, I certainly wouldn't need someone to remind me to hug my love ones. Good or bad, the love of family comes first. http://yardsales.com

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1467052, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/23/2014 9:34:11 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement