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

171–180 of 408 posts

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

#171

Post by gonehome »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #161
eastbound wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plus juice is kind of a crappy high sugar project that’s bad for you?

Relatedly, I have no idea how “Joe and The Juice” stores remain in business. They’re in super valuable real estate in cities across the country and as far as I can tell never have anyone in them.

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

#172

Post by jokethrowaway »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #35
kmonsen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think that’s not the main reason we have inflation now. Since every country in the world is seeing similar inflation I would think it’s supply side and not something any central bank can fight. I’ve always been Keynesian, but it faces the same problem as everything else, you need to be able to predict the future to do it well.

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.

Thanks to you authoritarians deciding for us, we will never know for sure. Comparing countries with similar densities (like Sweden and Finland) and different COVID policies seems to point out to a resounding no. Most likely we would have had a few more mostly elderly deaths, we won't have ruined the mental health of a generation and we won't have enriched big pharma even more.

Even with the pandemic going on it would have been better to suffer during the pandemic than cause a recession. The same people who were hit by lockdowns would be hit 10 times worse by a recession.

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

#173

Post by arrosenberg »

chii wrote: post #29
fny wrote: post #10

Look at a chart of the S&P 500 from 1920 to 2008 and you'll notice something rather curious: the stock market has gone parabolic ever since the financial crisis. What made this period so unique? Tremendously low interest rates coupled with quantitative easing dissuaded capital from financing the real economy and instead encouraged herding and levering up in the financial economy for returns. At ever dip, it was an op…

> dissuaded capital from financing the real economy and instead encouraged herding and levering up in the financial economy for returns. i don't really agree with this - the money used to purchase financial products don't disappear, because for every product bought, there was a seller. This seller now has cash, which would be invested elsewhere. The only concern is low interest rates, which makes the hurdle for any i…

Couldn’t there be an issue if the buyer is paying with margin that’s backed by an overvalued asset? Maybe not for the seller, but eventually someone will be left holding the bag.

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

#174

Post by jokethrowaway »

icelancer wrote: post #167
benjaminwootton wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're the Chinese Communist party, that's it.

I'm not willing to ruin my life on the chance some 90 years old may catch the flu and die. If they're worried about COVID they can isolate.

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

#175

Post by AlchemistCamp »

shawnz wrote: post #111
tedunangst wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every even modestly exponential curve has the same shape. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=y+%3D+1.05%5Ex+from+1+t...

This time is different, every time See for example this nice video from Ben Felix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh9Gn58r9Fw

What do you like about it?

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

#176

Post by grey-area »

pl-94 wrote: post #156
grey-area wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exponential curves in real assets are not sustainable.

The GDP is itself exponential. A growth of +2% a year is an example of an exponential curve. Sure there are "limits to growth" (see Meadows et al.) but it's not clear whether those limits are reached yet.

GDP rising exponentially is also clearly unsustainable.

We have IMO reached a paradigm shift in central bank policy after decades of low rates and low inflation. The recent past is not a good guide to the near future in markets.

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

#177

Post by icelancer »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #174
icelancer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you're the Chinese Communist party, that's it. I'm not willing to ruin my life on the chance some 90 years old may catch the flu and die. If they're worried about COVID they can isolate.

I happen to agree with you. Unfortunately, that debate isn't allowed to happen in the US. Or most modern countries.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

landemva wrote: post #77
refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandfather had $3M invested in the market in 2007. Lost $1M at the bottom in 2008, but didn't do anything other than rebalance. Now worth $8M. Either you fret over every price move and likely buy/sell at the worst times, or you invest with a long-term vision and stop tracking the price moves everyday.

>>> Now worth $8M. That is the price. Worth and value are different than price. If that $8M now buys about the same amount of blueberries or house as $3M in 2007, then it kept pace. Except for paying the capital gains on $5M.

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by serenitylater »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #161
eastbound wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#180

Post by sva_ »

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…

Their advertising video felt like something straight out of the TV show "Silicon Valley":

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X1oHp-VvhDE

Post reply on HN