3 ms·
A bit longer term, investment in stock markets was the best thing to have value survive the last two world wars. During and directly after war, who would want
by 47282847 2y ago
A bit longer term, investment in stock markets was the best thing to have value survive the last two world wars. During and directly after war, who would want gold. You want food/goods.
- int_19h 2y agoPeople who had gold (or expensive jewelry etc) and who were able to escape with it to less affected territories generally did pretty well.
- 47282847 1y agoSources? Or assumption? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Similar_laws_in_other_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Similar_l...
- lolc 1y agoI thought German stocks saw a haircut with WW2 but maybe I'm uninformed.
- 47282847 1y agoIt’s going to be interesting to see how we would deal with international stock ownership once we are at war with previous partners. An example might be how stock ownership of Russian shares was dealt with in the west. In general, looking at history, wealth stayed with the wealthy no matter what. Example study: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/19/the-wealthy-in-florence-today-are-the-same-families-as-600-years-ago/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/19/the-wealthy-in-flo...
- lolc 1y agoYou seem to have confidence US stocks will not become worthless in a future war. Why?
- 47282847 1y agoBecause most public companies have been surviving wars just fine so far in history? I also didn’t say anything about US stocks specifically. I consider it irrational to only invest in one geographic region. It is simply a historical fact that nothing preserved value over time better than broad stock ownership. Not gold. It mostly carries psychological value.