All price (no politics)
#1
Posted 17 February 2007 - 08:55 PM
#3
Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:44 PM
"marxism-lennonism-communism always fails and never worked, because I know
some of them, and they don't work" M.Jordan
#5
Posted 17 February 2007 - 10:31 PM
Actually, just about every country in Latin America owe their economic base to various degrees of socialism.The evils of communism at work
But like here in the states, and the problems we constantly hear about in why our markets can't go any higher, political ideology can be overwhelmed with the right amount of liquidity.
Fib
Better to ignore me than abhor me.
“Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it” - Benjamin Franklin
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance" - George Bernard Shaw
Demagogue: A leader who makes use of popular prejudices, false claims and promises in order to gain power.
Technical Watch Subscriptions
#6
Posted 17 February 2007 - 10:54 PM
Mexican Stock Exchange:
At the end of 1993, Mexican investors held about 75 percent of the equities traded. Although the value of Mexican-owned stocks rose by about US$143 billion between 1987 and 1993, only 0.2 percent of all Mexicans had brokerage accounts at the end of 1992.
Sounds like 0.2% of Mexicans held 75% of the equities traded.
The rich got richer.
Edited by Rogerdodger, 17 February 2007 - 10:55 PM.
BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER...Official records systematically 'adjusted'.
#7
Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:37 AM
Does anyone have any more up to date figures than this:
Mexican Stock Exchange:
At the end of 1993, Mexican investors held about 75 percent of the equities traded. Although the value of Mexican-owned stocks rose by about US$143 billion between 1987 and 1993, only 0.2 percent of all Mexicans had brokerage accounts at the end of 1992.
Sounds like 0.2% of Mexicans held 75% of the equities traded.
The rich got richer.
Sounds familiar, they got that democracy thing down too!
Does anyone have any more up to date figures than this:
Mexican Stock Exchange:
At the end of 1993, Mexican investors held about 75 percent of the equities traded. Although the value of Mexican-owned stocks rose by about US$143 billion between 1987 and 1993, only 0.2 percent of all Mexicans had brokerage accounts at the end of 1992.
Sounds like 0.2% of Mexicans held 75% of the equities traded.
The rich got richer.
"marxism-lennonism-communism always fails and never worked, because I know
some of them, and they don't work" M.Jordan
#8
Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:45 AM
Does anyone have any more up to date figures than this:
Mexican Stock Exchange:
Sounds like 0.2% of Mexicans held 75% of the equities traded.At the end of 1993, Mexican investors held about 75 percent of the equities traded. Although the value of Mexican-owned stocks rose by about US$143 billion between 1987 and 1993, only 0.2 percent of all Mexicans had brokerage accounts at the end of 1992.
The rich got richer.
No need to use a calculator for the exact number, as the mental-math estimate is overwhelming. This is very sad. I'm no fundamentalist, but I still cannot swallow the argument that market price commands economy. Maybe I'll become a market atheist .
http://www.mindbranc...R313-16963.html
"...by the end of 2004 there were 184,300 mass affluents and 49,300 high net worths..."
"Although mass affluents account for 79% of the population, they hold only 30% of the liquid assets."
(I'm sure they meant to say here "79% of the wealthy population". spielchekr)
"High net worths account for 21% of Mexico's wealthy population and 70% of that population's onshore liquid assets..."
https://www.cia.gov/...ok/geos/mx.html
population: 107,449,525 (July 2006 est.)
Edited by spielchekr, 18 February 2007 - 09:49 AM.
#9
Posted 18 February 2007 - 12:58 PM
Hold your horses there spell checker!Maybe I'll become a market atheist
Maybe Mexico is just a century behind the US:
Here is an interesting fact I dug up from The First Measured Century:
"In the US, the proportion of households owning stocks rose from 4 percent in 1952 to 52 percent in 1998." In the US in 1900 it may have been closer to Mexico's 0.2%.
1900 United States sounds a lot like Mexico 2000:
In 1900, a plurality (42 percent) of American men worked in primary occupations such as farming and fishing; by 1998, only 4 percent did. The big growth was in tertiary-sector occupations such as management and service (from 21 percent to 58 percent). Interestingly, the proportion working in secondary occupations (such as factory work) was exactly the same in 1998 as it had been in 1900 (38 percent). Work became much safer--the annual death toll on railroads and in coal mines, for example, dropped from about 5,000 early in the century to about 100 today.
Contrary to another widespread impression, the amount of housework done by American women plummeted.
Store-bought foods, electrical appliances, and wash-and-wear fabrics, among other improvements, had done away with an entire tradition of drudgery.
With fewer children and much less housework, American women poured into the labor force. In 1900, 6 percent of married women were in the labor force; by 1998, it was 61 percent.
Higher standard of living
Perhaps the biggest change in Americans' daily lives was in their household standard of living--U.S. housing was dramatically upgraded during the century. It is hard for us to conceive of housing conditions in 1900: no central heating, no running water, no electricity.
The real incomes (adjusted for inflation) of American workers increased dramatically during the century. As their incomes rose, American families spent a smaller share of their budget on food (43 percent in 1900 to 15 percent in 1997) and a larger share on transportation (2 percent in 1900 to 12 percent in 1997). They also gave away more money: philanthropic donations (not including bequests) increased twelvefold in real dollars from 1930 to 1990.
The increase in standard of living was greater for the poor than for the rich: the incomes of the lowest 40 percent of families tripled from 1929 to 1998, while the incomes of the top 5 percent almost doubled. Likewise, the proportion of the population living below the official poverty line fell from 22 percent in 1959 to 12 percent in 1999.
Business revenue increased ninefold from 1939 to 1996, while the population only doubled. This increase was reflected in stock trading volume (up 1,300-fold since 1939), the value of stocks (Dow Jones Industrial Average up 77-fold since 1939), and the proportion of households owning stocks (from 4 percent in 1952 to 52 percent in 1998).
BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER...Official records systematically 'adjusted'.
#10
Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:06 PM