Personally, I expect to see the markets go haywire for a few days or weeks. Then everyone will realize its Greece and they have an economy not much bigger than South Carolina, and things will get back to normal.
The real question is what real long term impact will this have on the Euro zone and their ability to negotiate with other nations that are in a financial bind. Same goes for the IMF. And will this cause Greece to form closer ties with Russia, and perhaps weaken NATO.
On a Personal note, I am planning a trip to Italy next year. Wish I could move it to next week as I expect the Euro to slide a little vs the Dollar over the next few days.
Both are related to Stansberry. That is good advice regardless of whether we are facing hard economic times or not.
Fwiw, predicting hard economic times, recessions, etc... is like predicting that someday another hurricane will hit or another terrorist attack will happen. We all know that these things are going to happen. The only questions regarding economic bad times are when, how long, and how bad?
Internet? I remember sneaking behind around the back of the drive in theater in Winston to climb up in a tree and watch it. This was when betamax was in its infancy stage and you still had to go to a theater to watch porn.
Three of us stayed there for about 10 minutes, got bored and left.
Bottom right hand corner Stansberry & Associates No point in reading anymore. Stansberry and associates has made hundreds of predictions. About three have been accurate, and at least one of those probably involved thundershowers in the South during Summer.
But if he puts that 150 grand every year in that same modest investment, he would get, well its to early in the morning for Math, but he would have more than he would had he blown it on hookers and blow. :)
Don't agree at all. Many people gain wisdom in financial and other matters as they get older.
Football players are generally paid well, but they take a tremendous risk of serious injury. IMO, given the amount of money on the table and how integral the players are to the sport, they deserve to have a significant portion of the money guaranteed. Not all of it, but a significant portion of it.
I would say that Wilson is a little better at using his legs to escape rushers because he is a little smaller and and has a quicker first step. Cam is certainly better when it comes to designed runs, and running through or over defenders.
True, but what most don't realize is that Unionist actually won significant amounts of legislative seats in the 1860 election. A majority of voters seemed to favor staying in the Union, and in fact there was little doubt that NC would stay in the Union, at least until it became apparent that Lincoln was going to use force against the southern states. Reading the history of the secession movement in NC seems to indicate that a majority did not want to leave. On the other hand, it shows that many in that majority were extremely naive in that they believed Lincoln wouldn't use force to bring the Deep South states back into the Union.
Some of you should read the story behind North Carolina's succession. Its an interesting story. The governor tried several times to get the legislature to agree to succession, only to see it fail as the Unionist held sway in the legislature. It was only after Sumter and the succession of Virginia (which made NC position untenable) that he managed to get enough votes to pass succession.
Sure we can. General Forrest was an ardent supporter of slavery as were many others. But its a given that most career soldiers didn't own many slaves, since being a soldier was not exactly a path to the wealth required to run a large plantation.
I do find it ironic though that if you look at Lee and his Corps commanders at Gettysburg, they were not exactly hardened supporters of slavery. Lee would have freed the slaves to preserve the union. Longstreet said they should have freed the slaves, then fired on Sumter. Ewell suggested emancipating and arming them to win the war, and Hill was nearly an abolitionist. Opinions within the military clear cut.
Lee didn't despise slavery, although he did say that he would be willing to give it up in order to preserve the Union. He fought for the South for one and only one reason, that being that he was more loyal to Virginia than to the US.
Loyalty to the state over the nation was not uncommon in the first 80 or so years of the US. Many Northerners had similar loyalties. Had they still been alive, its probable that many of the founding fathers such as Jefferson, Madison, and Washington would have went with Virginia when she left the Union.
Personally, I am not fond of trying to project our own sense of right and wrong on figures in history. The reality is that slavery had a long history, and it took some longer than others to realize that its time was coming to an end.