JayB

I don't think I could be called ungenerous in characterizing the entirety of your thinking on these matters thus far as "I don't know what the right policies are, but the policies that we've adopted thus far are wrong." Here's some straightforward questions for you, that should be relatively easy to answer given your oft-stated positions on these matters. How about some straightforward answers? What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of? Does the case of say - Iran - support the claim that active or tacit US support is either necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a repressive regime? Have any of you considered non-political forces that promote the development and maintenance of repressive political models? If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent. My contention here is that no matter what the US or other western powers did in the region, there'd be very strong tendencies towards autocracy there, and that these tendencies will continue to present an obstacle towards democratic reform in the region for as long as oil provides sufficient revenues for the regimes that are currently in charge there. ... I think the argument I've seen is that political repression in Arab countries has been dramatically higher as a consequence of US support - explicit or tacit - for the regimes doing the repressing, and that attacks by persons inhabiting these countries on the US and other Western powers are an outgrowth of and reaction to that repression. I am curious what the consensus is amongst people who hold this view concerning what would transpire if the US were to immediately disavow anything that could be construed as support for, and abandon all regimes in the Middle East which are undemocratic and/or repressive. Would the repression end? Stay the same? Get worse? And what implications would this have with respect to the frequency and intensity of attacks carried out against the US by citizens of these states? Does the fact that a significant number of the terrorist attacks carried out against the US and other Western powers were conducted by persons who had either lived in Europe for a number of years, or were born there, and who thus never experienced or had escaped from the type of repression in question have any bearing on your thinking about the role of US-fostered political repression in bringing about attacks of this nature?

"Why Rich Kids Don’t Stay Rich Rich kids, we hear, have it all. Money. Connections. Top educations. Cars and clothes. For those who are part of what Warren Buffett calls “the Lucky Sperm Club,” life is supposedly one long shopping trip with an no-limits ATM card. A really big play houseBut what if it’s not? What if growing up rich actually has disadvantages? And what if rich kids’ penchant for spending — and their lack of experience at earning — catches up with them, and that unlimited ATM machine winds up empty? (Not to feel sorry for these people, just to point out a reality.) That’s the premise behind my article in the Los Angeles Times today, which profiles a wealth-education camp designed to teach today’s rich kids how to manage their money. My conclusion is that despite all their supposed advantages, today’s rich kids have grown up in such bubbles of privilege that they’re not prepared for today’s increasingly competitive job market. They don’t make good investors, they don’t compete well for the top jobs, and they’re not hungry for success like kids who grow up in middle-class homes can be. Eventually, I argue, their money will run out. And much of the inherited wealth in America will flow back to people who actually earn it — as it has throughout history. This is what makes wealth in America dynamic, rather than dynastic. Some readers disagreed. One sent me a thoughtful email arguing that “the ultrawealthy are not stupid. They know their children. Some just fork over hundreds of millions to willing yet untrained hands, but I think most set up foundations or other mechanisms that will keep their name and children in the pink for generations to come. The very smartest and most family-oriented probably even invest in training their children to take the reins.” In other words, rich parents don’t give their money to irresponsible kids. I’m sure this is true for some families. But in my experience, rich parents can’t help themselves when it comes to spoiling their kids, no matter how irresponsible those kids are with money. And those kids usually wind up squandering their money through bad investments, bad relationships or lavish shopping sprees. Since there are no reliable data on this, we have to go by experience. What do you think? Will today’s rich kids stay rich, or wind up leaving the bulk of their fortunes to the rest of us?" Apparently this article showed up on the radar of those under discussion and they've started to respond in real-time. Makes for some interesting reading: Responses to the Post in the "WSJ Wealth Report" "Most people without substantial wealth have not much more than a half baked opinion on what those with money, especially heirs, can go through. While the masses are all obsessed with those who seemlingly have it and yourselves lusting after it and generally deriding those who have it. Yet you still buy your lotto tickets hoping to win a million. This life is like a cruise liner, some get on and some get off and down the track it continues to happen. Just cause my folks (or maybe myself) booked me a ticket into a swankier cabin than those bunking on a lower deck certainly doesn’t mean too much if I go through the cruise without affinity or compassion for my fellow travellers regardless of which deck I’m camped on. Being a good steward of what you’ve got is key and if you have more you have a different set of challenges than those who perhaps don’t. And certainly after reading the ill-informed comments of many above and joe public in general to the wealthier in society it’s no wonder most can’t appreciate the secret challenges and pressures that come with created or inherited wealth. http://inheritance-project.com/ may give those interested to educate themselves some further insight. And to the rest of you I’m certainly not going to try." :cry: :cry: "i’ve had a bit of a lavish upbringing, complete with trips to Europe before I learned about the place in school, and vacations on jets and yachts but around high school I noticed my parents, neither a college graduate, were clueless about saving. I decided then that I didn’t want to be relying on them and decided to go college for finance. While I still live a spoiled lifestyle and party more than I should, I am doing what I can to be prepared when I finish college next spring." "hat’s considered rich nowadays? I went to harvard-westlake– a high school that is generally for kids of the semi-wealthy. We are a competitive bunch!! So are all of the other prep league private schools. A MAJORITY of the students head off to ivy leagues, the rest go to top notch state schools like cal or UCLA. We have connections. We think we’re poor even when we’re rich. I feel sorry for kids who don’t have the same resources as we do– and thinking that rich kids will squander everything and not know how to compete in the real world is a fallacy that will generally work out to the rich kids’ advantage. don’t do it. the u.s. needs to take care of its middle class still!! the gap isn’t getting any smaller, I promise." "You know, there are reasons why I think that some of these blog posts are beyond ridiculous: they tend to make judgments about rich people from the outside. Go ahead and do it, but know that there are rich kids out there who may have grown up with a nice life (some might say too nice), who are still grounded in reality, don’t have slaves who will fetch them coke and good lawyers at a moment’s notice, and work hard at jobs their parents didn’t get for them. I agree most heartily with the poster who suggested that good parenting produces good kids. If you indulge your children, of course they’ll end up like Paris, but if you teach your children respect for the rest of the world, spoiled or not, it will get through. ___ Also, to imply that rich kids should end up as “good investors” or to exhibit the same drive that the ancestor who created the wealth exhibited is an unfair projection. Many more poor people don’t manage money well (can we say credit card debt?) and exhibit no drive in their careers and are unprepared for the competitive job market. _______ Suggesting that being rich should enable kids to acquire these traits is yet another reason this blog is driving me nuts. I understand that the purpose of these articles is to cut a window into the lives of the rich, but it just shows the ugly side of America’s fixation on money. Money doesn’t bring happiness. End of story. By sitting around and critiquing and judging and researching the lives of these people, who are such a small percentage of our world and whose lives no one could hope to figure out, the readers and writers do not do themselves a favor. Focus on your own family dynamics and your own giving and your own house and stay out of ours. Your children are no business of mine and I am none of yours." Etc..

Are you aware, that Iran had a democratically elected prime minister from 1951-1953, and he was overthrown via a plot between the US and the UK, and replaced with the Shah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax Perhaps we should let these people run their own lives and nations, rather than continueing to butt in to protect "our" oil. I don't accept your premise, on which your questions are based, that we are engaged in an effort to spread democracy. We are just trying to protect oil, that some here feel we have a god given entitlement to. Refusal to accept an argument is one thing, a refutation is another. You don't need to accept the premise that an argument is based upon in order to refute it - actually disagreeing with the premise is quite helpful if this is your goal - so one would think that if my this were my premise (it isn't) and you were convinced that it was false, it would be a relatively simple matter for you to formulate a series of rebuttals which advance your own arguments to the detriment of my own. For example, I don't accept the premise upon which Creationism is based, but this in no way prevents me from both answering a question that a Creationist might present me with, and using logic and facts to incorporate a refutation of the said false premises into my answer. Moreover, whether you believe the US policy goals in the Middle East include spreading democracy or not, for example, this in no way prevents you from answering simple questions like "What would happen if the US completely disengaged from the Middle East?" If you believe that the US has been the single most important factor in suppressing, say - the emergence of modern political freedoms, protection for the rights of religious minorities, etc - in the Middle East, then one would think that the question would provide an opportunity to claim that absence of US involvement in the Middle East would be extremely beneficial for the people there, and provide whatever arguments that you could muster to support your assertion. Anyhow - the response that you were able to provide is quite revealing, more so, in many respects, than any attempt to actually answer the questions might have been, so thanks. Thanks for the hot-tip about Mossadeq as well.

Okay. The final questions are the ones that most directly pertain to people with your viewpoint, but the first three are germane as well. What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of? Does the case of say - Iran - support the claim that active or tacit US support is either necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a repressive regime? Have any of you considered non-political forces that promote the development and maintenance of repressive political models? If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent. My contention here is that no matter what the US or other western powers did in the region, there'd be very strong tendencies towards autocracy there, and that these tendencies will continue to present an obstacle towards democratic reform in the region for as long as oil provides sufficient revenues for the regimes that are currently in charge there. ... I think the argument I've seen is that political repression in Arab countries has been dramatically higher as a consequence of US support - explicit or tacit - for the regimes doing the repressing, and that attacks by persons inhabiting these countries on the US and other Western powers are an outgrowth of and reaction to that repression. I am curious what the consensus is amongst people who hold this view concerning what would transpire if the US were to immediately disavow anything that could be construed as support for, and abandon all regimes in the Middle East which are undemocratic and/or repressive. Would the repression end? Stay the same? Get worse? And what implications would this have with respect to the frequency and intensity of attacks carried out against the US by citizens of these states? Does the fact that a significant number of the terrorist attacks carried out against the US and other Western powers were conducted by persons who had either lived in Europe for a number of years, or were born there, and who thus never experienced or had escaped from the type of repression in question have any bearing on your thinking about the role of US-fostered political repression in bringing about attacks of this nature?

Hey Fig 8: I have some questions of my own for folks who make the argument that's implicit in your questions on the previous page. I hope that you'll answer them.

J-Clark: I have to get back to work, and asking this question feels just a bit ridiculous, but have you had the chance to read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright? If so - I'd be interested in hearing your take on it, if not - I think you might find it interesting.

Thanks, Jim. I'd be interested in reading your responses to the other questions I've posted if you have the time to answer them. Also - couldn't one argue that our attacks on the Taliban have galvanized radical Islamists in Pakistan and everywhere else, and have had negative impacts on public perception of the US amongst Muslims of virtually all persuasions around the globe? If one posits that whether or not an action by the US inflames radical Islamist sentiments - or gives rise to a general sense of grievance or animus towards the US - in the Muslim world should be the primary litmus test by which the advisability or inadvisability of a particular action must be judged, wouldn't considerations of this sort have ruled out any military action against the Taliban as well? What implications would such a stance, if adopted, have on constraining US actions in light of the response to a particular set of cartoons established in an obscure paper in a small Nordic country? Is there ever a point at which the significance or an importance of a particular policy goal, or a crisis of a significant magnitude would warrant taking actions that were certain to arouse significant resentment against the US in the Muslim world, and increase the number of Jihadists intent on attacking US, or should any action that had the potential to bring about either be rejected out of hand?

Do you really feel like categorizing our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a fight against Muslims is accurate? Do you think that the British Governments actions against the IRA could be best described as a non-specific fight against Catholics? Were US actions in the first Gulf War, and in Kosovo also best described as part of a fight against Muslims? Have the US attacks in Iraq and Afhghanistan - in which the overwhelming majority of the citizens are Muslims - been indiscriminately targeting all Muslims, their holy sites and shrines, etc - or is there a subset of the populations in each majority Muslim country that has been targetted, rather than the entire population? If this is a fight against Muslims that we're waging, why have there been no attacks on Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc?

I think the argument I've seen is that political repression in Arab countries has been dramatically higher as a consequence of US support - explicit or tacit - for the regimes doing the repressing, and that attacks by persons inhabiting these countries on the US and other Western powers are an outgrowth of and reaction to that repression. I am curious what the consensus is amongst people who hold this view concerning what would transpire if the US were to immediately disavow anything that could be construed as support for, and abandon all regimes in the Middle East which are undemocratic and/or repressive. Would the repression end? Stay the same? Get worse? And what implications would this have with respect to the frequency and intensity of attacks carried out against the US by citizens of these states? Does the fact that a significant number of the terrorist attacks carried out against the US and other Western powers were conducted by persons who had either lived in Europe for a number of years, or were born there, and who thus never experienced or had escaped from the type of repression in question have any bearing on your thinking about the role of US-fostered political repression in bringing about attacks of this nature?

Very weak showing on the baroque conspiro-mongering. Paging Buckaroo and fear_and_greed...

One more - would you be more favorably disposed towards a regime that while undemocratic, preserved certain rights and freedoms, or one that transmitted the unfettered will of the majority into law no matter what the nature of those laws might be? Turkey - where the Army has intervened to preserve the secular constitution established undemocratically by Attaturk - provides a reasonably good approximation of this scenario in the real world. Have the Army's undemocratic interventions there been beneficial or detrimental to population's well-being and our interests there?

I don't have the time necessary to read or comment on the entire letter, but after doing a bit of skimming the following questions came to mind: What is the ethically and diplomatically sound way to deal with unsavory, undemocratic regimes when the forces likely to displace them are likely to be both more repressive and more hostile to both the West and many of the rights and freedoms that (small d) democrats around the world consider - or at least claim to consider - fundamental rights that no one should be deprived of? Does the case of say - Iran - support the claim that active or tacit US support is either necessary and sufficient for the establishment of a repressive regime? Have any of you considered non-political forces that promote the development and maintenance of repressive political models? If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent. My contention here is that no matter what the US or other western powers did in the region, there'd be very strong tendencies towards autocracy there, and that these tendencies will continue to present an obstacle towards democratic reform in the region for as long as oil provides sufficient revenues for the regimes that are currently in charge there.

...Not to Worry About Overpopulation.... OdcnodkaiAI And another... PQxT2HvKRT8

Do the rest of us a favor and start smoking unfiltered camels and supplementing each meal with a pack of hostess Ho-Ho's.... Seriously though - smoking fast. Thanks for the report and the photos.

If any of them have made any effort whatsoever to obstruct or oppose a more efficient highway or bypass on the grounds that it will deprive them of business they deserve to be maligned, and I'd make it a point never to patronize any of them with owners that said as much in public. If they have businesses that can only survive with the help of congestion, they deserve to go under, and fast.

The Sultan-to-Monroe Megacluster is definitely bad news. Seems like a perfect candidate for a bypass-route, but then perhaps there'd just be that much more traffic and fatalities on Highway 2 unless there were significant improvements made to the portion of the highway that traverses the pass.

I think I remember some folks opposing the move, but it was a small contingent and this was way back in '99 or thereabouts. Since we were talking about an area that was already within the ski area's borders, I think that the only effective argument against the installation of the said lift would have been that adding the lift would diminish both the overall skiing experience at Crystal, and thus the crowds - but the fact that there were stashes to be found back there a week or more after the last storm made the "you'll sell fewer lift tickets" argument less than compelling. Thankfully there's still Southback, and a few other areas inbounds that will continue to yield good stashes, though there's nothing in those areas that can compare to a run from the top of Northway Peak to the bottom of lower Northway. As far as the season passes are concerned, $1000 is pretty steep, but the pass-rates as the tiny-ass, perpetually-icy, powder-grooming (Seriously. One of the more bizarre and depressing elements of East Coast skiing is listening to people on chairlifts express relief and satisfaction when they see that all of the new snow has been groomed under) POS resort-trio has jumped from around $350 to $650, and daily rates are on-par with Whistler - so if I was there and close enough to get the necessary mileage out of a season pass I'd hand over the cash with glee.

"A new Doppelmayr chairlift was purchased last fall for the North Country area of Crystal Mountain. The North Country is a large area of terrain along the north side of Crystal’s designated permit boundary. The lift will provide access to approximately 1,000 acres and increase Crystal’s 1,300 acres of lift serviced ski terrain by 77% to 2,300 acres. The name for the new chairlift is “Northway.” It will deposit skiers at the top of Northway Peak after a ride of just under 10 minutes. From there, skiers face an amazing choice of skiing Snorting Elk Bowl, Northway Bowl, Paradise Bowl and Bruce’s Bowl, following Right Angle Ridge to a variety of expert glades and chutes or heading farther north to drop into places like Morning Glory Bowl and Brand X. Several new trails are to be constructed that will feed into the bottom of the new lift. Tree cutting began on Monday, June 18th in the North Country area. The use of a helicopter will be implemented to remove the downed trees and to help keep the impact on the environment at a minimum. A selection of trees will be cut and removed to clear paths for the new trails and chairlift towers. The footings will be poured as soon as the snow is completely melted. Chairlift towers will be flown in and set into the footings by helicopter in late-August to early-September. The lift equipment itself is unusual in these days of high capacity, high speed detachable lifts. Northway is a double chairlift that will move along at a faster-than-standard rate of 550 feet per minute but will limit skier capacity in the new terrain to 1,200 people per hour. This will increase the existing 19,110 people per hour lift capacity to 20,310. “It’s about the skiing.” said Crystal Mountain General Manager John Kircher. “I’m sure people appreciate the big high capacity lifts that we have on the front side of Crystal. We have a job to do handling the crowds here but we all see how fast the snow gets tracked out. The new lift in the North Country is designed to provide access but keep the snow quality higher.” The new lift service will also serve to spread skier traffic out and keep skiers from funneling back through the base area. The addition of the Northway Chairlift was approved with the Master Development Plan (MDP). Crystal Mountain received the Record of Decision (ROD) in August of 2004 from the U.S. Forest Service. The ROD came following an in-depth review of the Draft Environmental Impact Study issued in August 2001. The MDP, along with 6 alternatives, was originally submitted to the Forest Service in 1999." Goodbye to one of the best stashes of lift-served pow in North America. Those drops at the top of Northway were also some of the most consistently good that I'd found anywere. Just enough air, always had tons and tons of pow beneath them. This is not making the pain of the sentence I'm serving on the Ice Coast any easier to bear. A tracked out Northway will make it that much more likely that I'll find myself being the retarded old-guy trying getting owned while trying to learn new stuff in the terrain park [gvideo]-2865212750885547046[/gvideo] http://www.skicrystal.com/1729.html

Enough waxing poetic about the last visit to Gitmo already, kemosabe...

Too bad the video didn't include contact info for you virendra - soulmates a' plenty for you in that there video. Now how about sending Mark a twenty so that he can buy some breakfast and pay the first installment on the in-store loan he took out to finance his new set of tires...

Mark Dice "My last broadcast will be Sunday August 26th. It has been a great 8 months and I enjoyed all the points and questions the callers would bring up. I had the opportunity to interview some of my favorite authors, and confront some fools who deserved to be confronted. At times I feel I’m preaching to the choir and that my time and energy would be better spend spreading the message to new people face to face. I do not have the time nor the money to continue the show. Once every other week or so I would plug the book at the end of the broadcast and ask people to support me if they like my videos and the show. I can’t tell you how many times after the show is done I will not even sell one copy. More often than not, it’s not even a single one. I can’t remember the last time I sold two books after the show. This was never about the money for me, but I’ve invested so much money and time into fighting the New World Order, that the tires on my truck are bald and I can’t afford new ones (the breaks need to be replaced soon too), and I have sacrificed countless hours of time with friends and loved ones to be doing what I’ve done for the last two years. I actually leave work early on Sundays so I can do the show, and I miss the Sunday night service at my church when all of my friends go. (not to mention spending time with my girlfriend.) I have done this for the country, for the movement, and for what is right, but I am burnt out and broke and very disappointed in the movement as a whole. With google video being so popular, many people just watch videos for free and never buy the DVDs and support the film makers, and it seems people are even more reluctant to buy books. I'm almost out of copies of The Resistance Manifesto and have NO MONEY to print the new run. It’s going to cost about $7 thousand dollars. That and my laptop, which is the only computer I have, is almost burnt. The screen flickers to black all the time, and I fear it may just not come back on. The thing crashes almost every day too. I have a ChipIn box on MarkDice.com if you want to donate to help me get a new one. I'm making about HALF the money at my day job than I did last year because business sucks and the economy is crap. I work in sales management. If I have to get a new job, I won't have all day to research and make videos since I will be forced to become a corporate slave so I don't start bouncing my rent check which I almost did last month. I'm very disappointed in the movement, not only for not supporting my work, but for not fighting for the cause. I showed everyone how easy it was to jam radio talk shows like Hannity and O'Reilly. I should be hearing a half a dozen calls every day about the Illuminati and 9/11, yet I hear none. I have stopped listening to these clowns in hopes of hearing a caller slam them on the issues, because it doesn’t happen. We are the last hope for this country and our way of life, and I’m wondering if most of 'the movement' hasn’t been moving at all. Just sitting by watching. I am certainly not giving up, I am just regrouping and prioritizing my time. I will still be making videos and doing truth jams. I have some other big ideas I’d like to execute in the future too. Perhaps if my situation changes and I have the time and resources I will start broadcasting again, but until that happens I am retiring from Resistance Radio. The last show on August 26th I have a pretty good guest scheduled, provided they don’t back down or have a change of schedule. I should go out with a bang. Thanks for those who have supported me and continue to support me, and Power to The Resistance." http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13405 Now a message from Mark Dice, and The Resistance... [gvideo]4856528641647293277[/gvideo]

rRppZ_rco-s&feature=dir

I'd talk to Ford Canada as well. While you are at it, send a letter to this guy, and ask him if this is the way he wants his brand represented in B.C. Alan Mulally, CEO Ford Motor Company P. O. Box 1899 Dearborn, MI 48121

Toss some R.E.I.T's into the mix and you've got a stake in a nationwide mix of residential/commercial/industrial properties that's way more diversified than a single home, that you can sell at the push of a button. How about if we just trade a cam of my choosing for your home and call it even....

Depending on the movement of the market, investing the rent-vs-mortgage differential in a diversified portfolio may not return as much as paying the mortgage on a comparable home home, but the risk is far lower, and the liquidity is much higher, and the transaction costs are at least three orders of magnitude lower. The returns on *not* buying anything in Boston in 2005 for the same reasons that I'd be very reluctant to buy pretty much anywhere in 2007 have been greater than zero on a nominal basis, and when you factor in typical maintenance, transaction fees, inflation, etc the balance-sheet looks even better. Investing is like avalanche forecasting on a slope-by-slope basis, or making the decision about whether a snow-bridge will hold. No one can tell what a particular slope or ice-bridge will do at any given point in the future, but you can analyze the risks and make decisions based on the risk-factors that you can identify. I may choose to walk around a snow-bridge that a 300lb'er decides to spend a half-hour salsa dancing and squat-thrusting on top of before he crosses to the other side, and nothing happens, but I don't mind walking a bit longer if it gains me the certainty that I'll avoid taking the big plunge...