171–180 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing dividend does make sense because dividends are taxed. You cannot reinvest all dividends, unless you're using a tax advantaged account.
This might justify discounting dividends (eg reducing them by 20%), but not removing them entirely.
If I was alive in 1923 and stashed away $8 million in ̶c̶a̶s̶h̶ (Edit: 100y bonds) would only be worth about $140 million today. Had I put it into some fancy ETF (Recall Vanguard dates back only to 1975, but whatever) I'd be a billionaire. That's it, that is the entire difference of less than an order of magnitude. Don't reckon the nickels and the dimes matter much to centenarians. Most people don't even have $8000 t…
If you had $8million in 1923 cash stashed away, you’d have $8million in 2023 cash today. Ie you’d have lost about 94% of your buying power.
"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
One of the charts you don't see is the performance of the stock market from say 1900-1950 for countries like Russia, Japan, France or Germany. We have this point of view that the US is a good place to invest, but to an investor in 1900 that might not have been such an obvious choice. Looking back 50 years from now it may seem like it was obvious the US was going to collapse from some political issue and clear that yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's providing energy with fewer intermediaries soaking up profits along the way, and can be done "anywhere" the sun shines instead of where resource deposits are concentrated. Entire political classes will be (and are) mobilized to push against this. There is a lot to lose for a lot of people. That and a huge % of the stock market's value right now is built up of energy companies. Especially here in Canada.
So we’ll spread out energy production to more smaller actors, and it will be more interesting how energy is used. That could rejuvenate markets, let old fossil giants die. Trudeau should rejoin the Paris Accords and move to the secondary and tertiary sectors (or as Mulcair put, get rid of Dutch Disease), or Canada (and everybody else) will be fucked.
But there's still boatloads of people over-invested in it who are going to be in for a rude awakening if humanity actually gets its shit together.
One of the charts you don't see is the performance of the stock market from say 1900-1950 for countries like Russia, Japan, France or Germany. We have this point of view that the US is a good place to invest, but to an investor in 1900 that might not have been such an obvious choice. Looking back 50 years from now it may seem like it was obvious the US was going to collapse from some political issue and clear that yo…
The St. Petersberg Stock Exchange closed in 1914, reopened briefly for a short period in 1917, and then did not reopen thereafter.
But a comparison of it to the US between 1864 and 1914 is available:
https://www.investmentoffice.com/Observations/Markets_in_His...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> think this is more that we're entering a post material scarcity economy No we’re not. Materials for housing, etc are just as expensive as ever. Food still has to be heavily subsidized by the government directly and indirectly (“water rights”). Post-scarcity is a fantasy world used to justify heavily socialist policies that allow people to not work without having to wonder who does have to work.
Food is heavily subsidized by the government to avoid complete and total social instability. 100 years ago we realized that a underfed population made a terrible workforce and worked on remediating that. All the while farming automation and the green revolution made it so a large portion of our population working in farming/food became just a very tiny fraction. Meanwhile a pure capitalism based farming community wou…
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but unless you have a personal definition of capitalism that doesn't equate to private ownership of the means of production, this is an obviously false claim.
Capitalist economies are notable for their ever increasing investment in the future and corresponding decrease in the time preference of money as an economy becomes more developed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like this follow up paper clarifies the data's vision a lot more. Notable changes from the previous version discussed in a sister thread here: - There is no more emphasis on price-only-inflation-adjusted returns. Good riddance: getting rid of dividends makes no sense and is borderline intellectually dishonest just to make the point. - He no longer argues stocks don't work for the long run, just that bonds we…
Removing dividend does make sense because dividends are taxed. You cannot reinvest all dividends, unless you're using a tax advantaged account.
I have a theory. The last 100 years has seen govt spending as percent of gdp increase to ever greater levels. People are expecting more and more handouts and no one wants to pay for it. Without the ability to pay for it via taxes, the govt will eventually have to default on it's currency and thus real returns on fixed income/bonds will have to become increasingly negative. Their article already shows a slight widenin…
Private debt dwarfed public debt until very recently, and it's still significany higher: https://braveneweurope.com/steve-keen-what-is-the-role-of-pu... Also GDP is a terrible proxy for economic prosperity. A broken window adds to GDP, but subtracts from prosperity. If we had a better proxy for prosperity, it would be easier to see if government debt was actually net negative or net positive effect. As is, all argume…