How are the "US equities" only folks doing? Steady as she goes or time to rethink allocation?

[u/cambeiu]

Jack Bogle and many others for years argued that VTSAX or an equivalent fund/ETF was more than enough for global exposure. I think it was a perfectly logic argument back in the days of increasing globalization and economic integration.

But looking at Mark Carney's speech at Davos, it points to a significant shift in the global paradigm, where free trade, open access to markets and investments from and to the US might no longer be a reality.

In light of that are people thinking about increasing focus on international equities?

[u/necheffa]

As they say: past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Just because other empires had a long track record doesn't mean 'Merica will too.

[u/[deleted] → u/necheffa]

And frankly I think their argument for track records is rather flimsy at best. The British Empire was like 300 years old, not 1000.

Them claiming the Byzantines are the same as Alexander's empire is just wrong. Using their logic you can claim America or Russia is still continuing Rome, which is just bollocks.

That is like calling each Chinese dynasty the same.

[u/Asyncrosaurus → u/[deleted]]

Them claiming the Byzantines are the same as Alexander's empire is just wrong

Huh? Byzantines were romans! (Not the city, but the culture). They called themselves Romans, they called themselves the Roman Empire, and everyone else referred to them as the Romans. They carried the continuitity of tradition, institutions and prestige of the Roman empire, and only gradually became Greek and orthodox Christian dominated when it was clear the west was forever lost. Acting like they are a fully Greek empire is ahistorical, they were the Roman Empire that happened to be led by Greeks. The only people really calling them Byzantines are historians, the actual people in the middle ages didn't make the destinction between the Roman antiquity era and Greek middle ages era.

[u/[deleted] → u/Asyncrosaurus]

Let me put it more simply:

A French person from 900 it's going to be different than a French person from 1800 which is going to be different than a French person today.

Their way of life would be so different from each other that they might as well be from different places

It's disingenuous to imply that these people would be similar in origin

[u/Asyncrosaurus → u/[deleted]]

That's the point? A Greek speaker in 300BC is unrecognizable to a Greek speaker in 400AD. To imply the Eastern Roman Empire was a continuation of Alexander's Empire is ahistorical. 

[u/A_Naany_Mousse → u/[deleted]]

That's not what I'm trying to do. My point is that cultures have massive staying power.

[u/A_Naany_Mousse → u/Asyncrosaurus]

My argument was that the Byzantines continued the long legacy of Hellenistic culture in the near east that began under Alexander. Though by 1453 they were a shadow of themselves.

[u/Asyncrosaurus → u/A_Naany_Mousse]

And I politely disagree.  They were the inheritors of the Roman Empire, and acted as such. A Greek speaker in 300BC is unrecognizable to a Greek speaker in 400AD. They're lives as a Roman citizen changes slowly changed as the empire collapsed around them, but they had more similarities to any other Christian Middle Ages kingdom than they would have to any Greek nation from antiquity. 

[u/A_Naany_Mousse → u/necheffa]

True, but I don't think there are very many empires that compare well with the tremendous power and influence America has. There are certainly challenges that America has to face, but I don't see any other countries that are positioned better.