This is what I think too. Now obviously we're possibly on the verge of another massive change in tech with AI but there's still nothing that guarantees that the market has to go up.
> Now obviously we're possibly on the verge of another massive change in tech with AI could easily turn out to be another nft style "boom"
It could be a massive nft style boom, but if it is an nft style boom, expect a massive nearly worldwide economic collapse due to growth constraints around population issues.
The problem with buy and hold and pretty much every current strategy is that its distorted by the huge 40 year bull market we've seen in the USA. Every American asset has gone up big time - of course "time in the market" is a good thing. If you look at Japanese or European stock markets they tell a very different story. Similarly the next 40 years in the USA could be a miserable time for investors. I can't believe ho…
1 - People should be able to retire. 2 - Their retirement should be financed by 401ks and the like. 3 - Stock Markets can go down as well as up. You can't have all three, so the government will always ensure that the stock market goes up long term.
> Ashley Action took a simple, consistent approach: Each year, once she received her cash, she invested her $2,000 in the market on the first trading day of the year
Every scientific endeavor is about predicting the future. Imagine your 3 closest friends wanted you to invest in your business. Could you predict which of them would likely do better than the others?
> No one really knows but it wont be as good as the last few decades. Such confidence! The first part is of course true, but you’ll make money teaching the market that you are smarter if the latter is true. Perfectly possible that AI kicks the economy into overdrive in the next few years and growth increases. I wouldn’t bet my house on it, but also wouldn’t bet my house against it either.
How would AI do that?
I’m genuinely a little bit more productive with ChatGPT. A lot of tasks I do take 30 mins or a hours less, several times per week.
This data set should be expanded to include 100 of his peers who started trading at the same time.
Are there 100 people who know finance and think carefully like Nassim taleb? What do their outcomes look like? I would bet all of them do pretty well. (I'm not even a big Taleb fan.)
This is just like the startup founder argument. Every one which succeeds ends up having a tremendously interesting background demonstrating unique interest and capability.
Buffett says this kind of stuff publicly. But his own fund moves in and out of investments all the time.
He also said >But it's true. I could name half a dozen people that I think can compound $1 million at 50% per year -- at least they'd have that return expectation -- if they needed it. They'd have to give that $1 million their full attention. But they couldn't compound $100 million or $1 billion at anything remotely like that rate. A lot depends on the details of who's doing what.
Yep, you also wouldn't give the same computer/software advice to your grandma as you would a peer at work. Buffet is telling us to leave trading to the pros, but he absolutely trades.
No, I mean societally it's unaffordable. The government will eventually need to raise taxes significantly or begin means testing it. The current system is mathematically unsustainable
The current system is mathematically unsustainable pretty much by the design of a certain political faction interested in demonstrating the incompetence of government. Removing the income cap—currently around $160k—on the social security tax would do a great deal to make social security sustainable (and more equitable).
Think how many problems could be solved by removing (democratically) that faction: Social security, climate change, immigration (to a significant extent), education, et al
> The dogma that it's impossible to beat the market is frankly weird at this point. I agree. Meta was literally priced below $90 not even a year ago (I entered at about $100 FWIW, which was my nice and round number). Now at $315. Anybody who believes the market is efficient is on some serious drugs. The market correctly valued Meta a $380 or so before the crash (because "TINA" I'm supposed to believe), then correctly…
The market correctly valued Meta a $380. Then Meta announced they were going all in on the Metaverse, had set fire to $100bn so far and were going to continue to throw ~$20bn a year into the Metaverse - the market correctly valued Meta a $100. Meta announded they were going all in on the Ai - the market correctly valued Meta at $315. You have picked a poor example; the moves in the stock, are primarily the fault of t…
Meta had about a zero percent chance of dying like MySpace. Meta has tens of billions of dollars of annual profits (2x of Walmart, amazingly, $30 billion vs $15 billion) near total dominance of social networking, mobile advertising, etc. MySpace had none of those.
It's called social security and it's enormously expensive and borderline unaffordable... And not even enough to retire on comfortably
Yet it works so well that the public overwhelmingly supports it. > borderline unaffordable It's funded by your own income; it's a compulsory savings plan.
Most people will get more out of social security than they pay in, though.
It’s possible that the general HN view is skewed because tech tends to pay well and this dynamic erodes at higher levels of income.