3 ms·
> It is particularly foolhardy to place the ending point at 1941. Seems a perfectly logical point since after that the gov't took control of the economy to fue
by UncleEntity 7y ago
> It is particularly foolhardy to place the ending point at 1941.
Seems a perfectly logical point since after that the gov't took control of the economy to fuel the war effort and dictated what was produced.
Also, how may Axis citizens saw high equity returns on their government bonds?
- hogFeast 7y agoIt isn't a "perfectly logical point" as I have explained. The study looks at technology, not war (as you are suggesting). It is probably the year in the whole of the century that, in hindsight, explains value returns best...is that coincidental choice? I am not sure what your point is about the Axis either...as with the US and the UK, most people had their savings inflated away. To be totally clear, and this isn't 100% related with the topic: that period is a terrible example because it is reproducible. The assumption with all these studies of long-term returns is that past returns are reproducible. They are not. If you were a normal citizen around 1941, you were forced to invest in govt bonds (banks were forced to buy govt bonds, if you had a deposit you owned govt bonds).