Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

endlessmetrics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 408 posts

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#161

Post by jokethrowaway »

eastbound wrote: post #151
tedunangst wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that webvan is always cited as an example of a startup that could never work, but really just an early example of do something that doesn't scale and just keep doing it until you somehow make money. But VCs weren't yet ready for the unicorn burn.

Juicero was the mirror product, then: An overpriced orange juice machine, with little packets that you can only buy on subscription, but can’t suspend while on holidays, with a QR code to prevent you from consuming after your holidays. It is also down if it can’t reach the Wifi. It showed that you can overcharge and make everything become a cloud subscription, because money was unlimited on the consumer side this tim…

While I can see luxury food delivery kind-of working (wealthy workers in the office ordering lunch, wealthy home workers ordering lunch, fitness nuts who want calories and good food without cooking), Juicero was just plain ridiculous.

Competition from local supermarket is too strong. I can get freshly squeezed juice from the store machine anytime I want for cheap.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#162

Post by jokethrowaway »

nathanvanfleet wrote: post #18

Sad to think that investing in the stock market, which I have only been able to financially over the last 5 years might have been much riskier than I might have previously thought. What I previously thought as "okay I just leave it in the stock market for a bit of time to recoup" is something I am now realizing would likely have to be 10+ years. It's kind of funny because I was getting shaky about having money in the…

I was pissed because I didn't invest in my portfolio to buy a house during the pandemic and missed out on pandemic gains - but checking how much money my portfolio lost, I made more money to keep those in cash.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#163

Post by sharkweek »

michannne wrote: post #147
na85 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just watched that a few weeks ago. Great movie, but to be honest I thought Jeremy Irons was unconvincing and played the role poorly/was poorly cast.

Felt the opposite, he really exuded that cold-and-carefree-but-wise archetype I'd expect from a mid-2000s cocky hedge fund manager who got themselves into that position in the first place.

The scene in the boardroom where the analyst says, “well, that’s where it becomes more of a projection” then looks sheepishly over at the two VPs.

I love the way Irons’ character catches the glance and says, “you’re speaking to me Mr. Sullivan.”

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#164

Post by pdevr »

icelancer wrote: post #132
pdevr wrote: post #28

Index investing will work, if you live for a long time. The problems are, we do not live infinitely, and the average person does not have the stomach to see their investment going down for years, unless that investment is small enough to tolerate (in which case it is not enough to make a big difference, for most people). What I think will work - not claiming that it will actually work - based on history: Invest in co…

>> Index investing will work, if you live for a long time. Maybe. Those who own the Nikkei index are still waiting.

Ha ha. It did finally reach that old "peak" again, but I guess it took some 30 years :) A little over 10% for 30 years of patience.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#165

Post by jokethrowaway »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #71
01100011 wrote: post #43

SNL skit from the dot-com era: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/152279877872567500... Does anyone have a solid understanding of how QE affects the economy? From what I've read, QE basically stays locked in the financial system as interbank cash. I think this can affect short term interest rates, and therefore affect lending(and money creation by the big banks), but otherwise that money doesn't really drive i…

Why would $5.4T in stimulus that, as far as I know, came and went a year ago be causing ongoing inflation?

Because... you have more money in the market?

It did spike up inflation when it was introduced and once inflation starts its effects tend to spiral.

Look, we're also coming from years of QE. We've been screwed for years, it's just a matter of understanding when the government won't be able to support this monster they created and let th market correct itself. Instead of a series of small economic crises we'll get a massive one.

Most of our economic crises are caused by governments interfering with the market.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#166

Post by galaxyLogic »

icelancer wrote: post #132
pdevr wrote: post #28

Index investing will work, if you live for a long time. The problems are, we do not live infinitely, and the average person does not have the stomach to see their investment going down for years, unless that investment is small enough to tolerate (in which case it is not enough to make a big difference, for most people). What I think will work - not claiming that it will actually work - based on history: Invest in co…

>> Index investing will work, if you live for a long time. Maybe. Those who own the Nikkei index are still waiting.

Investing in stocks is risky you can lose most of your money. And some people do lose most of their money. That is the nature of probability.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#167

Post by icelancer »

benjaminwootton wrote: post #154
Tiktaalik wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country did what the Fed did for the same reason: We've experienced (and are still experiencing) a once a century global pandemic. The measures to limit pandemic deaths would have completely destroyed the economy had the governments and their associated banks not taken the measures they took to support people during this difficult time. It's not the Feds fault, it's the pandemic.

There is still considerable debate if those measures were actually effective. Did closing down entire industries, closing borders, making 20 year olds WFH etc really move the needle on Covid deaths in retrospect? And even if it did, was it ethical, fair and is it a reasonable price to damage the economy and life prospects of hundreds of millions of young people who weren’t at statistical risk? Its important because i…

> There is still considerable debate if those measures were actually effective.

Not really. I agree with the thrust of your post but there is definitely no considerable debate being had on this topic, because Near-Zero COVID is the only acceptable policy, and saving lives at any cost along with it.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#169

Post by freyr »

bagacrap wrote: post #53
tyre wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The COVID fiscal canon blew growth and inflation skyward. This is not true and has wrongly given credit to people who have said, since 2020, that COVID relief would cause inflation. Our current inflation is driven by supply chain issues (unrelated to COVID relief) and rising oil (unrelated to COVID relief.)

I don't know why you're so confident. All of these things can contribute to inflation.

Probably an adherent of modern monetary theory.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#170

Post by icelancer »

kmonsen wrote: post #51
refurb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They blamed inflation in the 1970's on supply side issues as well. Sure, the oil embargo contributed to price increases, but looking back, it was pretty clear it was fed monetary policy that drove most of it. And monetary policy by Volker that fixed it. No different today. Massively expand the money supply and you (eventually) get inflation. Add in a few supply issues and you amplify the problem. But I agree with you…

That’s the problem, in bad times you pour money into the market either directly or with interest rates. Then I’m good times the opposite is supposed to happen. But this time the good times never arrived and now we are trying to fix it in the middle of a war, pandemic and massive supply shock, including for energy. It’s too easy to get it wrong and make the problem bigger.

>> Then I’m good times the opposite is supposed to happen. But this time the good times never arrived and now we are trying to fix it in the middle of a war, pandemic and massive supply shock, including for energy. It’s too easy to get it wrong and make the problem bigger.

Good times happened recently, and they've happened in the past. But no POTUS ever wants rates to go up and money to be tightened under their watch, no matter what the situation is.

We're doomed to a bust/boom cycle, because it's all we can tolerate. We can't tolerate minor pain or minor corrections if they're preventative. We can only tolerate unavoidable catastrophe.

Post reply on HN