Why have you used 1942 as the end date for World War II? You could argue that the Battle of Stalingrad (1942) was a turning point, the official end of the WWII was in 1945.
It was the rising power, the apex power, at the end of the WWII with huge portions of the Global GDP - more than half by some estimates - and immense military power combined with a domestic economy that was merely retooled for war instead of ruined utterly lack a number of other countries.
Using it as the reason to stay invested seems deeply unwise.
I do agree with you that we must stay invested, but I don't quite agree with your reasoning in the article.
Why have you used 1942 as the end date for World War II? You could argue that the Battle of Stalingrad (1942) was a turning point, the official end of the WWII was in 1945.
Do consider that you're looking at the US.
It was the rising power, the apex power, at the end of the WWII with huge portions of the Global GDP - more than half by some estimates - and immense military power combined with a domestic economy that was merely retooled for war instead of ruined utterly lack a number of other countries.
Using it as the reason to stay invested seems deeply unwise.
I do agree with you that we must stay invested, but I don't quite agree with your reasoning in the article.
Thanks for your work in writing it though.