71–80 of 123 posts
can someone explain this article? made no sense to me.
I'm not surprised it made no sense. It's from a school of writing that uses poorly defined dramatic terms like blood-letting and secular bull to make it sound like the author knows something. If you read someone like Buffett who actually makes money trading stocks you get a completely different take and vocabulary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it looks to me like the stock market has a tendency to follow an exponential curve - or at least a high degree polynomial. I also believe that to a certain extent the stock market is bound to the real world and in the real world growth is currently not following an exponential/high degree polynomial curve. The tension between the two is causing an oscillation to develop which overrides the tendency for high d…
Unfortunately the system operating in the real physical world is based around human behavior, which, despite probably following some heretofore undiscovered law or algorithm, is very difficult to predict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's what the title says, but it is click bait. What the actual article says is that in social groups with well defined hierarchies, higher ranking members tend to contribute more than average to the common good (though this might be biased due to their role in defense against external threats). This old fashioned notion that the rich are expected to hit above their weight level is called Noblesse Obligue, and…
Slight nitpick: "noblesse oblige" not "noblesse obligue" French locution Noblesse oblige ~ En raison de leur caractère noble ~~ Because of their nobility
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stock market is less than 200 years old. Let's not make any bold predictions about unbreakable trends when we're talking about time periods up to 25% of the age of the market itself. After all, at one time the conventional wisdom was "No football team who plays their home games in a domed stadium will ever win the superbowl." And there were decades of evidence to support that statistical fact!
Yes but that fact doesn't have any scientific basis, it's just pure coincidence. There's no reason why it didn't happen other than the fact that it didn't. The stock market on the other hand, indicates the overall health of the country. It's not a coincidence that it keeps going up as the wealth of the nation goes up. Recently in baseball, all 30 teams played on the same day, and all 15 home teams won on the same day…
Yes, that was the basis of my analogy. I do indeed think those situations are similar for that reason.
> But a long term downward trend in the stock market? Means death for a nation's economy.
Well, you're forgetting the idea of a steady-state stable non-growing non-shrinking economy, which is one possibility (see spain: https://www.google.com/finance?q=MADX%3AIND&ei=p5LcVYr0EI6S2...)
But even talking about down-trends, I think "death" is a bit strong. It could also indicate a gradual transition to a lower stable position. Plenty of economies survive at small sizes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was no looting of the neighbors. There was some racketeering though. It was mostly redistribution of the previously state owned enterprises.
Are you really suggesting oligarchies are desirable? Because that was the result of much of this redistribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stock market is less than 200 years old. Let's not make any bold predictions about unbreakable trends when we're talking about time periods up to 25% of the age of the market itself. After all, at one time the conventional wisdom was "No football team who plays their home games in a domed stadium will ever win the superbowl." And there were decades of evidence to support that statistical fact!
There are real forces that propel the stock market upwards: productivity and an ever increasing population (so more overall revenue and therefore profits over time). This is why its a pretty safe bet that over 15 year+ time periods that the stock market will go up.
I understand increases in productivity enable support for a larger population- but that's not a bottomless well. There are insurmountable practical limitations.
The younger you are, the less it all matters, as the trend over a decade or more will always be "up". (If not we have bigger problems.) So if you don't plan on retiring off your investments in the next 10 years, just enjoy the ride. If you do want your money in the next few years, it shouldn't be in stocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hope this is sarcasm. No one really wins from a recession. Sure you may make some money if you go short at the right time, but it's still better to have moderate wealth in a rich world than be among the richest in a poor one.
Not at all - the only way to get to the top of the social ladder is during times of great stress on the system. As a person with no family I can only win. There are no downsides for me. And it is quite fun to see people losing money and fortunes. The look in their eyes when they realize how fragile their world has actually been ...
Look at the ftse 100 over a 30 year time frame and tell me you can't make a guess as to what's coming. Go here and click on 'all' in the zoom menu https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AUKX&ei=qlLcVZHi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the paper: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140326/ncomms4526/full/nco...
Thanks, much obliged. I wish articles would provide proper references!