81–90 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"(If not we have bigger problems.)" That would be an accurate assessment of the situation. We have big problems, getting bigger.
But not Mad Max, Zombie Apocalypse level problems.
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...
Double bottom, that's what happens. Expecting more heights. Long FTSE! edit: Stock market theme is huge for click baits and zerohedge readers. No extremes are healthy and there's too much drama around this.
Chart reading is not voodoo, but bad chart reading is worse than voodoo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Double bottom, that's what happens. Expecting more heights. Long FTSE! edit: Stock market theme is huge for click baits and zerohedge readers. No extremes are healthy and there's too much drama around this.
> Double bottom This is no place for this kind of tea leaf reading nonsense.
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.
This is a growth based analysis (in effect a form of pyramid scheme), and it increasingly simply isn't true, as many in Japan are discovering. As populations flatten and eventually decline, most of the established dogma will fall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But our population can't increase steadily forever. That trend HAS to end or even reverse at some point. I understand increases in productivity enable support for a larger population- but that's not a bottomless well. There are insurmountable practical limitations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is that past performance is indicative of future results...
over a long enough time period? yes.
We've enjoyed the repercussions of the United States' rapid ascent from a fledgling colony to a world superpower. If we look at the stock market during this period of remarkable growth, it's very easy to conclude that markets will always go up. Of course, this would be a very foolish conclusion.
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.
as the trend over a decade or more will always be "up" This is a growth based analysis (in effect a form of pyramid scheme), and it increasingly simply isn't true, as many in Japan are discovering. As populations flatten and eventually decline, most of the established dogma will fall.
What gets me the most is how much everyone buys into the massive ponzi scheme that is the stock market. Look, first you have to realize that most people and entities on the market are only a small blip on the graph compared to the big ones. The central banks, the banks that make up the central banks, and the various offshoot parasitical entities such as financial manipulation agencies and suprainternational corporati…
It didn't prevent 1929. It didn't prevent 2008. But nothing else in the time since has been on the level of 1907, let alone 1879. Two crashes in a century, instead of an average of one real crash every 7 years or so, is still a massive improvement.
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…
What is the scientific basis by which we can expect this to continue indefinitely? In fact, all evidence points to the contrary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But our population can't increase steadily forever. That trend HAS to end or even reverse at some point. I understand increases in productivity enable support for a larger population- but that's not a bottomless well. There are insurmountable practical limitations.
Well, the US population can continue to grow until overcrowding becomes a problem, or food becomes a problem, or energy becomes a problem, or nobody wants to live here anymore. The first three seem a long way out; the fourth might arrive sooner...