Unlike Rome, it never accepted itself as an empire. The spirit that animated the democracy as a city-state remained as they came to dominate and control the other city-states. That is something we see with modern America. The typical American, regardless of political cult, does not think of himself as a subject in an empire.
In fact, most stubbornly cling to the old democratic ideas. Most white people, for example, think the constitution still plays a role in the law. They think elections make a difference. Even non-whites think elections matter, which is why they are organized. They want their guys in office on the assumption that their guys will act on their behalf. Like Athens, America is an empire that does not know itself.
Further, it is an empire that is blind to its own authoritarianism. Many are shocked, for example, at the widespread and coordinated response from the corporate oligarchs to the riots. They are baffled as to how they have these propaganda campaigns ready to go as soon as the riots were started in Minneapolis.
They struggle to process why people are forced from their jobs for not cheering loud enough at the struggle sessions. That really is the distinguishing feature of the modern American empire. No one can accept that it is both an empire and authoritarian. This is a society that bans books, throws men in jail for their politics and has created a form of internal exile for those found to be guilty of impiety.
These were things that happened in Athens. Similarly, America is a financial empire, more than a military one. Athens became an empire when their currency became the default in the region. Like Athens, the American Empire struggles to control itself. On the one hand, the economic prosperity allows it to generate great wealth, while on the other hand the internal incoherence leaves it staggering around like a blind giant.
Twenty years in Afghanistan, for example, is every bit as insane as the Greeks invading Sicily in the Peloponnesian War. Democracy demands a unifying purpose, so that becomes the point of the democracy, finding some unifying cause. The one difference, of course, is Athens was blessed with a neighbor that could defeat it in war and strip it of its empire. America has no enemy that can do that or even wants to do it. The Soviets were as close as we came, but the analogy does not work because Americans and Russians do not share the same heritage.
The Spartans and Athenians were Greeks and saw one another as Greeks. No such relation existed in the rivalry between communism and liberal democracy. The American empire lost its one rival in the 19th century. America became an empire when the Yankee north conquered the Tidewater south in the Civil War. At that point, the Athens of America became a continental empire. After conquering its great spartan rival, it then moved west, conquering the rest of the continent.
In time, it expelled the European powers from the hemisphere. Then in the 20th century, the American empire conquered Europe and Asia. Instead of reliving what happened to the Western Romans Empire, what we are experiencing is what would have happened if the Athenians had prevailed over the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War.
Instead of the Athenian democracy being contained, it would have spread like a virus around the region. After plundering the royal treasury and taking other rich booty, Alexander decided to sack the city itself after a suggestion made by a courtesan at a drunken party if legend is to be believed.
The real reason for the destruction of the city may have been retribution for Persian acts of sacrilege against the Greek gods during earlier conquests in Greece. Some scholars of Alexander, however, view the incident as the result of an impulsive decision to pay off the Greek troops, because the material rewards had thus far been relatively meagre looting and plundering being usually forbidden Bosworth, Whatever the reason or, more probably, reasons , the city and its palace were reduced to rubble.
With that devastation, Alexander completed the destruction of the ancient Persian Empire. He gave specific orders, however, to leave the monuments, particularly the tomb of Cyrus the Great, a king he greatly admired, intact. He also made it a point to visit this tomb. It had taken Alexander only three years—from the spring of BC to the spring of BC—to master this vast area.
But having gained this empire was not enough for him. Alexander and his army marched ever further eastward, battling nomadic warriors and rebels on what were considered the northeastern fringes of the known world. In order to complete his conquest of the remnants of the Persian Empire, which had once included part of western India, Alexander eventually crossed the Indus River in BC and entered the region bordering the Persian province of Taxila. Here he met the feared Indian monarch Porus, who, with 25, men and elephants one of the highest numbers of these behemoths ever employed in any battle of Western classical history , nearly managed to do what the entire Persian Empire had not been able to accomplish.
But then Porus had a competitive advantage: horses are scared of elephants, so his multitude of pachyderms rendered the Macedonian cavalry all but useless. For about two weeks Alexander moved his troops up and down the western bank of the river Hydapes, pretending to make the crossing into Taxila.
Porus followed suit, shadowing his movements until he became tired of all the false alarms and let down his guard. When Porus had finally been lulled into complacency, Alexander crossed the river during the night, taking him by surprise. Even modern logistic experts admire the ability of the Macedonians to transport an entire fighting force across a swollen Indian monsoon river in just a single night.
King Porus surrendered and became a reliable ally. As in the case of Porus, Alexander would respect and pardon a brave enemy. He always made sure that collaboration was presented as a much more attractive proposition than resistance.
Most often, capitulation of an enemy force was rewarded with kindness; revolts, however, were suppressed ruthlessly. It was a well-calculated strategy designed to minimize battlefield losses. Adversaries were more inclined to submit to Alexander knowing that they would be pardoned and included in his empire and realizing that the alternative was extremely unattractive.
He would be the first to attack the Theban Sacred Band, mount an imposing city wall, or climb an impregnable rock. One famous obstacle he encountered on his journeys was the Rock of Aornus, a natural formation rising almost three thousand metres above the Indus River.
The demi-god Heracles was said to have failed to take this rock as he wandered the earth performing his great labours. As had happened on many other occasions, Alexander was the first on the rock to face the defenders, defying Heracles to be the greatest besieger in history. A reflective practitioner As a field commander Alexander was among the greatest that history has ever seen.
Loved by his troops, he maintained meticulous discipline none the less. He was a brilliant strategist, willing to adopt new tactics and create innovative forms of warfare, perfecting the military innovations started by his father and devising new ones of his own as illustrated in his ability to improvise and adopt guerilla tactics, fighting tribal groups in Afghanistan and against King Porus and his elephants in India.
Although frequently outnumbered, he used surprise, improvisation, and the lie of the land to extract himself from the most impossible situations. He always made it a point to know the battlefield better than his opponents, and he then used that military reconnaissance to maximum advantage.
He was a master at confusing the enemy regarding his intentions, he used decisiveness and speed as effective weapons, he created and maintained good lines of communication, and he encouraged his engineering corps to think creatively, resulting in battering rams, catapults, ladders, bridges, and siege towers that allowed the Macedonians to breach the most impregnable of strongholds. He had an uncanny talent for quickly determining the weak spots in the enemy line; and when there was none, he knew how to lure his adversaries away from optimal battle conditions.
In addition to putting his opponents at a disadvantage, he often managed to get them to respond in ways that he desired. Using these psychological tools to his advantage, he was able to coordinate all the elements of his war machine in lightning-quick, devastating attacks. Alexander was at his best in battle situations. No matter how grim the circumstances, he kept his cool, never panicking.
He always executed his plans in a coherent and coordinated manner, sifting deftly through conflicting reports and making correct judgments, however stressful the battle conditions. He showed unusual versatility in his use of both weaponry and tactics, adapting both as needed. He was extremely successful at all the types of armed confrontation that he undertook: more traditional warfare, sieges, anti-guerrilla actions, and ambushes. Under his leadership, his men never lost a battle—not once!
The old institutions were coordinated in the name of the king by a Persian satrap on whose behalf taxes were collected, and the local bureaucrats who had been running those institutions were retained, maximizing Persian administrative efficiency. It was the custom of the Great Kings to appoint members of their family and entourage as satraps.
Alexander admired the Persian way of administering an empire, as reflected in what he saw in his travels and what he read of the administration of Cyrus the Great. He also learned a lot about governance from the contributions of Aristotle. He knew that to understand and, when necessary, manipulate another society, he needed to identify the true centres of power, as well as their linkages, loyalties, and pressure points. He recognized that tribal and religious leaders would usually hold the main positions of power, and he saw the advantages of using the experience of these constituencies by supporting them.
To make this philosophy work, Alexander made very clear the advantages of collaboration. As a liberator, he strove to be sensitive to the local culture, treating with respect and tact any kings or tribal chiefs who pledged alliance to his ever-growing empire. If such leaders were prepared to collaborate, he would allow them to administer on his behalf. Alexander was an advocate of Greek syncretism, seeing the deities of Asia as local manifestations of the Greek gods.
He had no interest in imposing other gods upon them. By showing respect for the local traditions—something the Persians had not done—he increased the likelihood that he would be hailed as a saviour and liberator. Those people who opposed his rule, however, often experienced his terrible wrath— Thebes and Tyre being bloody examples.
In many of the Greek towns of Asia Minor that surrendered and were freed from Persian rule, Alexander exempted the inhabitants from tribute payments to the Great King and left local laws intact. He also generally placed a ban on looting and plundering, thereby winning local support. As self-declared king of Asia, the land was his possession, and the people his subjects. Given this position of ownership, encouraging destruction and enslaving his new subjects would have been a self-defeating proposition.
Macedonians replaced the Persian satraps, the tribute was now called a contribution, and ultimate authority resided not with the Great King but with the new great king, Alexander. Because he had banned plundering, his army could not live off the land, as some armies did; it needed to be supplied on a constant basis.
And yet he ran the supply train so effectively that his army continued to operate at lightning speed even far from home. He made different officers responsible for military, financial, and civil duties, spreading the responsibility broadly. He centralized his financial policy by using collectors independent of the local governors and had all revenues sent to his finance officer, bypassing intermediate administrators.
Although this reduced graft considerably, exploitation seemed to be permissible as long as sufficient revenue was generated for the government. Alexander set up garrisons all over his empire, each typically placed under the command of a Companion. He left each leader with a large number of garrison troops to deal with eventual resistance to his rule. Usually, these garrisons were also the foundations of new cities. Alexander has been unsurpassed as the founder of cities, with more than seventy credited to his name.
And he did not leave them to founder or flourish on their own: he made a major effort to populate his new cities by transplanting Greek and Macedonian settlers. He required prospective soldiers to learn Greek and be trained in Macedonian weaponry, offering what might be called the first state-supported system of education to the best and the brightest among his young Asian subjects.
Would it remain at Pella in Macedonia, as the old guard hoped, or would it shift to a moving court in Asia? Alexander hoped to strengthen his base of power. To the great concern of his Macedonian inner circle, he started to create partnerships with Asians, no longer limiting senior positions to Macedonians. Not only the governance but also the court itself was changing: the moving court in Asia was taking on the pomp and ambience of a traditional Persian court, in contrast to the more lowkey court in Pella.
In other words, Alexander was making a distinction in form between his role as king of Asia and his role as king of Macedonia. Alexander understood the importance of coinage in international transactions. He founded a number of royal mints throughout the empire to facilitate trade, feeding them with the gold reserves of the Persian kings. He established a new coinage under his name, helping to improve trade throughout his empire and allowing him to pay his enormous army and finance the building of new cities and ports.
Some historians have presented Alexander as a visionary who believed in the peaceful coexistence of different nations and races within his empire. They refer, for example, to the mass weddings ordered by Alexander to bring together Greeks and Persians. In general, though, the coexistence was anything but peaceful.
His determination to incorporate Persians on equal terms into the administration of the provinces, into the cavalry bodyguard, and into the army—as noted earlier, he provided Macedonian military training to 30, Persian young men—was heavily criticized by many Macedonians. Running a stable state was not for him. He was driven to go on, to make further conquests. He simply could not stop.
Parmenion, advising consolidation over further conquest, felt that the risks of further campaigning were extraordinarily high, especially given that a large part of the newly conquered territory remained unsettled and un-unified. Because there was no effective supervision of his officials, corruption and oppression gradually took root and eventually became widespread.
The prosaic details of long-term administration bored him. Taking the short-term view, he simply replaced one loosely structured empire with another, without putting into place the mechanisms that would have allowed it to last. Furthermore, although he took sufficient interest in his newly founded cities to populate them with outsiders, he made no real effort to integrate the settlers into the local community.
As a result, the original population often saw the new people as costly intruders. The settlers, for their part, were reluctant colonists, often staying in Persia only because of fear of Alexander. Many of them longed to return to the Greek way of life. But having conquered part of India was still not enough for the adventurous Alexander.
To go to the actual boundary of the world which was thought to lie beyond India was an irresistible challenge. Alexander had derived his geographical understanding from the teachings of Aristotle, who thought that India was a small peninsula running into a vast sea. As Alexander saw it, he could push on to the Ganges River and continue to the shores of the Endless Ocean.
He was determined to march to the very ends of the earth. Once he succeeded in finalizing this conquest, the kingdom of Asia would be bounded by desert and by the waters of the great sea—a practical result, given that the gained territories, with their difficult borders, would be more easily defended against enemies.
Alexander the Great: Moghul miniature to Lahore, a destination that would be the turning point, both for the campaign and for Alexander Bosworth, ; Kazantzakis, In his fervour to reach the Endless Ocean, he had miscalculated the mood of his men. Morale had been dropping steadily, and he had not observed its plunge. The youthful soldiers who had eagerly crossed the Hellespont with Alexander almost a decade earlier were now cynical, battle-hardened veterans.
Very few of them had gone through the travails unscathed. All were exhausted; many were sick. With their equipment in disarray as well, they were close to the breaking point. More money, or the permission to engage in plundering, no longer had much motivating effect. They were also confused about the two roles he was playing: a Macedonian king who had simple habits, and the Great King of Asia, a grotesque example of luxury and extravagance Green, ; Hammond, Facing this dangerous crossing so soon after the difficult victory against King Porus and his elephants , Alexander found his charisma failing him for the first time.
Despite a dramatic speech exhorting his soldiers to continue their glorious exploits, he was unable to win over the reluctant majority. Loud cheers from the other soldiers supported this statement. Then he retreated, like Achilles, to his tent, nursing his wrath, trying to overcome his depressive thoughts, and hoping that his officers would have a change of heart. But the men stuck to their position, and after three days Alexander realized that he was backed into a corner.
Hanging on to his position could lead to an insurrection of the troops. Cunning as always, he made a sacrifice concerning the crossing of the swollen river and then reported that his diviners saw the omens for continuation as unfavourable, thereby avoiding a confrontation.
Shortly thereafter he gave the order to turn back. So as not to lose face, Alexander held a celebration of that momentous decision. Alexander pleading with his officers by the river Beas. He would never quite be able to forgive his men for their refusal to continue.
He constructed a fleet and passed down the Indus to reach its mouth where Karachi is now located in September BC The fleet then crossed the Persian Gulf, and Alexander and his army returned over land. It was an excruciating march through the desert regions of modern Baluchistan, southern Afghanistan, and southern Iran, with shortages of food and water due to the failure of a scheduled supply convoy that was unable to reach them causing severe hardship and many deaths among his troops.
Alexander suffered with them, showing his solidarity: when his men ran out of horses—it was a rugged journey for beasts as well—Alexander dismounted and walked in front of his troops; when given some water, he poured it on the sand to show that he would drink only when all others could drink though he must have been suffering considerably from an unhealed wound Arrian, In their irritation at what they saw as a lack of consideration for their services, some made fun of Alexander, ridiculing his new recruits and his proclaimed ancestry to Zeus-Ammon.
Not any longer used to such frank interchanges, the king flew into a rage and berated the men for their ingratitude, reminding them that as he saw it he had transformed them from impoverished vagabonds to citizens of the greatest state in the Aegean. Then he stormed off and went into seclusion for a few days, nursing his depression. Afterwards he began to transfer Macedonian military titles to Persian units and surrounded himself exclusively with Persian staff.
The Macedonians, properly subdued, asked forgiveness for their remarks and actions and offered the surrender of the instigators of the mutiny. Alexander decided to be magnanimous, and considerable rejoicing followed. The two had been inseparable companions for years, having shared their education under Aristotle.
The king, grief-stricken, sheared off his hair in a gesture of mourning and ordered that the manes and tails of all the horses and mules also be cut. To honour his friend, he arranged a funeral whose magnificence has rarely been equalled. After a period of mourning, he sought to numb his grief through action, undertaking a forty-day campaign against a local tribe that had not taken well to subjugation.
Alexander then spent about a year organizing his dominions and completing a survey of the Persian Gulf in preparation for consolidation of his conquests in the Arab peninsula. He arrived in Babylon, in the heart of the former Persian Empire, in the spring of BC Those who had returned safely with Alexander to the site of their earlier conquests had covered over 20, miles within a period of roughly ten years!
After his arrival in Babylon Alexander immersed himself in a range of ambitious projects, the most important being a campaign against Arabia as he had received no acknowledgement of his rule from this former ally of king Darius.
He envisioned combining Asia and Europe into one country, with Babylon as the new capital. In order to attain this goal, he had corrupt officials executed and then worked more diligently than ever to spread Greek ideas, customs, and laws into Asia. Alexander again began promoting Persians to high-ranking positions in his army, arguing that Persians and Macedonians should share the empire in keeping with his earlier decision to push for marriages that united the two empires.
Alexander decided to prepare a huge naval force to start an Arabian campaign to consolidate his gains around the Persian Gulf. As he planned a voyage by sea to settle the coast of the Persian Gulf, he received a number of bad omens.
In spite of these omens, however, he continued preparing for the new expedition. By May he was sick with a fever that kept him in bed. Whether it was caused by an infection, malaria or some other tropical disease , or poisoning at the hands of senior officers worried about his inability to stop his conquests, we will never know. One of the Macedonian officers sitting at his bedside asked him to whom he would leave his empire. He was only thirty-two years old. After his death the empire he had worked so passionately to create fell into anarchistic chaos, a bloody struggle between his surviving commanders that no one man won.
Afghan tribesmen and Greek fishermen alike still invoke him as an ancestral patron. For many people throughout the world, he is seen as a model of exemplary leadership. And yet we have seen that Alexander had a dark side. Consider, for example, the 2, inhabitants of Tyre that he mercilessly crucified after the siege. Other power-based atrocities included the torture and killing of some of his own most loyal aides after the final defeat of King Darius, when his court was plagued by controversy and intrigue, and the brutal subjugation of the conquered peoples of India when tempers were high and enthusiasm for adventure low.
The justification for these acts is subject to debate to this day. In modern Iran Alexander is still seen as an evil king— a personification of the devil, in fact—who did his best to destroy the respectable old Persian culture and religion and who put Persepolis to the torch. In Arab memory he is often equated with a bogeyman; he is an object of fear with whom mothers threaten unruly children.
But in spite of his darker side, Alexander managed to have a huge impact. How did he achieve his success? What steps did he take to create meaning for his people and for those who came afterwards? What made him such a special leader, and what lessons can he teach us about leadership? Effective leaders speak to the collective imagination of their followers. They create a group identity by articulating and sharing their own dreams, painting vivid descriptions of a future state that touch the unconscious of their people Freud, ; Kets de Vries, a.
They possess the uncanny ability to externalize their internal theatre and perform it on a public stage Lasswell, They know how to tie in their personal vision with the historical moment Erikson, , They foster this process of meaning-management by using language, ceremonies, symbols, and setting. Leadership and stagecraft, business and theatre, join forces as effective leaders use strategic manoeuvres to mobilize psychological support.
Many strong leaders possess great oratorical skills and know how to make use of humour, irony, and the colloquial. All these devices, which effective leaders employ with an uncanny sense of timing and even suspense! The psychological relationship between leaders and followers can, at times, be compared to that of hypnotists and their subjects. As leaders reawaken through the compelling, authoritative nature of their message past relationships of dominance and submission, they create in their followers a desire to be taken care of, inducing dependency reactions Bion, that intertwine significant figures from childhood with contemporary figures.
Effective leaders realize consciously or unconsciously that the process of meaning-management requires painting the environment in sharp images, creating a Manichean world of light and darkness. Thus scapegoating—splitting the world into clear camps of us versus them, in-groups versus out-groups, or good versus bad—is an effective tool.
It not only facilitates and intensifies group identification; it also allows followers to split off undesired and undesirable attributes and use others as depositories for those attributes. This regressive process of externalization results in a release of tension. Clearly, the management of meaning is no simple task!
Few people in history have mastered it as effectively as Alexander the Great did. His talent for speaking directly to the imagination of his troops, motivating and inspiring them, and his ability to use symbolic action to get his vision across was legendary. He confirmed those intentions by stating as he did often that he was going to make right the wrongs done by the Xerxes, the Great King who had earlier invaded Greece. By articulating to his troops a sense of the righteousness of their cause, he earned their support.
He had a special ability to transform ordinary labourers into extraordinary soldiers, to get the best out of his people, whatever their role. By dramatizing the risk—by telling his troops that they were up against impossible odds at the Battle of Issus, for example—and by reassuring them that they were none the less up to the challenge, he made them feel special. And his troops would accept the dare every time, rising to the occasion. Extremely creative, Alexander was always prepared to challenge the status quo.
He possessed an uncanny talent to find new ways of dealing with complex situations. He knew how to use dialogue. By probing people in his inner circle he arrived at creative solutions. He was as imaginative in dealing with his adversaries as he was in dealing with his allies. He always sought new ways of looking at problems, whether those problems arose in battle situations or in more mundane encounters.
In addition to making his men feel valued, Alexander was good at emotionally touching and moving his people, demonstrating empathy through his actions. Furthermore, he conveyed the impression that he had all the time in the world for any soldier who wanted to address him though, busy as he was, that had to have been an illusion ; and when people talked to him, he really listened.
He not only seemed to be, but was, a genuinely caring general. No armchair general or absentee commander, Alexander lived the life of his soldiers; he spoke their language. He was always ready for a drink or a game of dice with his men. Drinking parties with his Companions were opportunities for mutual praise singing—to reiterate heroic feats done in the past.
During battle he could always be found at the front of his troops, easily recognizable by his white, two-plumed helmet. He led any attack in person and was usually the first man across a river, up and into a rock fortress, or over enemy lines. Unlike Darius, he never panicked under battle conditions. On the contrary, he kept an icy cool. Before each battle Alexander rode up and down the lines, singling out individuals and singing their praise to boost morale. He stopped before each unit to speak to his soldiers directly, calling out individuals and recounting their great deeds.
He talked of the importance of each mission and assured the troops that their contributions would be recognized. After each battle he would again visit his men, examining their wounds, praising them for their valiant efforts, rewarding them handsomely for their success, and listening to their stories of valour. He also arranged extravagant ceremonial funerals for the fallen.
During times of respite or peace, he provided recreational opportunities, arranging games and contests for the men. This excellent relationship with rank-and-file soldiers, characteristic from the start, was with Alexander almost to the end. And it paid off. Affection for their leader galvanized his troops, inspiring them to march ever further and to excel at every endeavour. The unflagging determination of their king was often the only thing that kept them going when they faced seemingly impossible odds.
The manipulation of symbols As we have seen, Alexander was no amateur in the motivation business. One of the earliest image marketers, he may have been the first conqueror to organize a publicity and propaganda department. In that period of history, divine signs were great motivational devices. A master at applying symbolism, Alexander used priests and diviners to help him when the situation required it, relying on his favourite diviner, Aristander of Telmessus who was with him throughout his time in Asia , to advise him at critical moments.
When he reached Gordium in present-day Turkey , he lost his patience trying to untie the Gordian knot, and then, in a nowfamous incident, engaged in a public relations coup by untying the knot by slashing through the rope with a sword.
The local oracle had declared that he who untied the knot must rule over Asia. Alexander may have believed these pronouncements, but he most certainly encouraged reports of them for propaganda purposes. When he heard that the tomb of Cyrus the Great had been desecrated, he lashed out in fury, and ordered it to be completely restored, viewing himself as the obvious descendant of this Great King. Desecration symbolized an attack on himself.
The family romance is a poetic tale in which the child pictures him- or herself as having been born of more distinguished parents and now being on a search for vindication and independence. It can also be seen as a way of denigrating a parent who is experienced as troublesome: finding the present parent lacking, the child fantasizes that the real, understanding parent must have been someone else, someone better. The young Alexander, encouraged by his mother particularly after the early family harmony was broken , fantasized that his earthly father was not really his father, that his true father was Zeus—a fantasy enriched by his identification with the semi-god Heracles and the mythological hero Achilles.
Over time, however, Alexander seems to have taken his fantasy increasingly seriously. He increasingly felt that his achievements—which by now far outshone those of Heracles and Achilles in his own eyes—had earned him a place in the pantheon of gods. Alexander also had a gift for manipulating his own portraiture for political ends.
Throughout his reign he retained close control over his official image, whether sculpted, painted, or carved. His preferred sculptor, Lysippos, generally portrayed him in heroic poses. Alexander overshadowed the age in which he lived more than any man before or since.
But this was only defacement; the ziggurat's huge bulk had defined destruction.
| Hoti to kratisto investing | 606 |
| Hoti to kratisto investing | 759 |
| Forex charts live free | Best bet of day |
| Crypto kareoke | Mauro betting usa peruca par |
| Hoti to kratisto investing | Casino capital of the world |
ROBERT T KIYOSAKI GUIDE TO INVESTING
Although the rules and procedures varied from exchange to exchange, they all had a trading floor where members conducted their business. Trading was once a fairly sedate and orderly affair where traders would sit at desks and walk over to other traders to do business.
But as business picked up, the interaction changed. The desks eventually went away. Sedate and leisurely trading was replaced by sometimes-frantic yelling and gesturing, with particular hand signals for buying, selling, and the numbers involved. The trading floor was sometimes called a pit. The Rise of the Machines While a busy trading floor looked like bedlam to the uninitiated, it worked surprisingly well for the most part.
But member firms and clients began to see what technology could offer them, particularly in terms of faster execution and lower error rates. Instinet was the first major electronic alternative, finding its way into the trading world in With Instinet, clients institutions only could bypass the trading floors and deal with each other on a confidential basis. Instinet was a slow grower and didn't really take off until the s. Nasdaq was established in but didn't really begin as an electronic trading system.
Rather, it was basically an automated quotation system that allowed broker-dealers to see the prices other firms were offering as trades were handled over the phone. It eventually added other features like automated trading systems.
In the wake of the crash, when some market makers refused to pick up their phones, the Small Order Execution System launched, allowing electronic order entry. Other systems followed. CME's Globex came out in , Eurex debuted in and many other exchanges adopted their own electronic systems. Given the benefits of electronic systems and client preferences for them, a very large percentage of the world's exchanges converted to this method.
For instance: The London Stock Exchange LSE was among the first major exchanges to switch, making the conversion in The Borsa Italiana made the change between and , followed by the Toronto Stock Exchange in The Tokyo Stock Exchange switched to all-electronic trading in Many major futures and options exchanges also made the switch along the way. Nevertheless, our methodology presents the possibility to specify the amount of the mortgage wanted and likewise the period you may afford it, gives you a real Probability get the funds you want!
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities - these are treasury securities in which the government will improve the principal value of the security, based mostly on the increase within the shopper price index CPI - along with paying interest on the securities. Get the very best for your family and personal your dream dwelling as well with our General Mortgage scheme. They haven't closed beds, however have employed much less experienced nurses, raised salaries and turned away at the least one affected person who would have been in its long run care program.
On common, debtors in Ohio pay an effective p. If the Quick-Time period Mortgage is to be repaid with funds, aside from monetary aid, payments might be made to the Office of the Bursar, Chubb Hall. While regular quick-term loans come with rates of interest as little as 8.
One other challenge to concentrate on before getting any brief term business financing is the potential of a debt lure. Only once in the country's historical past have voters returned to the White Home a president whom they had beforehand booted out of workplace: Grover Cleveland, who gained his second term in after dropping his preliminary bid for reelection in When you've got a credit score of at the least , a business that's over three months outdated, and have healthy, constant money circulation, you're most likely eligible for a brief-time period loan.
Naturally, nevertheless, the stronger your corporation, the higher rates and fees you'll be eligible for.
4 comments for “Hoti to kratisto investing”
can i access my cryptocurrency from other platforms
gary vee bitcoin
instaforex contest forex rally's restaurant
germany italy betting tips