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

More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 640 posts

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#171

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

dismalaf wrote: post #160
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Child rearing is a possible solution—it is our evolutionary “purpose” to reproduce, after all, and most people in the developed world today aren’t doing it. I doubt it, that's because to most people it does not feel purposeful, it's a chore. Most people who say it's purposeful are generally the most vocal ones, and I suspect the minority.

As someone with a young child, it definitely feels purposeful. Also the opposite of a chore, it's lots of fun and what I look forward to after a day of work. And I'm someone who, for most of my adult life, thought I'd be childfree...

Well I've heard people say this. What about the ones that regret it? I know of one personal acquaintance of mine who confided that he regrets having his kid. He would under normal social circumstances not mention it, for obvious reasons.

The problem is that it's a one-way street if you decide to have a child. Now if only one had an option to 'trial-run-before-one-commits' that would be ideal. I suspect (but not sure) that most people will still opt not to have them.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#172

Post by nullstyle »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #154
jaco6 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child rearing is a possible solution—it is our evolutionary “purpose” to reproduce, after all, and most people in the developed world today aren’t doing it.

A bit off-topic, but it’s interesting how this became the de-facto answer to any question related to “meaning of life” in the last 2-3 years in HN/tech circles. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s a bit weird. Like I’m sure everyone knows that? If a person isn’t having a child in their 30s, they either can’t because of multitude of different reasons, or they decided they don’t want to. Disclaimer: I’m as pro-kid as…

Yes, I've noticed it too. The most blaring example was DHH going on a "Just have some kids you'll be happier than you've ever been!" rant in some zoom talk ostensibly about coding that he gave in the past year. it's gross and condescending and not someone speaking as a public figure should be advocating for. IMO, We need better parents, not necessarily more parents, and if you're having kids because you're sad with life then IMO you should reconsider the ramifications of having a kid and then fucking up the parenting process. It's incredibly selfish

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#173

Post by karason »

kristianp wrote: post #118
inopinatus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once asked my wife, "what is my purpose in life?", and she has been cracking dolphin jokes at my expense ever since.

Is that a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference?

It's from Rick & Morty

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#174

Post by JasserInicide »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #154
jaco6 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child rearing is a possible solution—it is our evolutionary “purpose” to reproduce, after all, and most people in the developed world today aren’t doing it.

A bit off-topic, but it’s interesting how this became the de-facto answer to any question related to “meaning of life” in the last 2-3 years in HN/tech circles. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s a bit weird. Like I’m sure everyone knows that? If a person isn’t having a child in their 30s, they either can’t because of multitude of different reasons, or they decided they don’t want to. Disclaimer: I’m as pro-kid as…

Like many online sentiments I think it's reactionary, specifically to the stereotype of the liberal atheist DINK milliennial couple.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#175

Post by dismalaf »

matt3210 wrote: post #38

At one point I knew I could beat the market with l33t software skills. I was wrong and only realized it after donating about 3k to Wall Street.

In the beginning, I donated about $10k to Wall Street. Got smarter, went to university for first finance, then economics. Learned to actually trade. Crushed the market, made nearly $100k annually with starting capital of only $30k. Then realized my life expenses were a significant part of that, I didn't have enough capital to grow it fast enough to both live life and accumulate capital to make trading more worthwhile than simply getting a job with that education. Getting a job + having easy passive investments (like a market fund) was less hours, less stress and more profitable than being a full time trader starting with a middling amount of capital. Also trading is less fulfilling than things like building, entrepreneurship, having a normal job plus hobbies, etc... Lots of traditional entrepreneurial paths also beat the market pretty handily.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#176

Post by matwood »

jfengel wrote: post #96
dismalaf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. If the fundamentals are already good, they're priced in, you probably have little upside, even long term. Maybe you'll just match the market. You have to think the fundamentals will improve over time more than the market expects to beat the market. Long term, I think economics has more to do with market performance. Stocks rise as the money supply expands and capital has no where else to go.

You can't beat the market but you don't need to. The ordinary returns of GDP growth are pretty good. The free money has definitely been screwing with GDP as a base. I'm still unclear on why the Fed would lower interest rates when the market is fine, the GDP is fine, and inflation is still slightly above baseline 2%. I know everyone is yelling for the punch bowl to come back but now would be a good time to pay down so…

> I'm still unclear on why the Fed would lower interest rates

There's a lot of space between where they started (0%) and where they topped (5.5%) and where they are now (4.5%).

As you approach a stop sign, do you wait to brake until you're at the sign or do you start slowing down as you approach?

At 5.5% the Fed became concerned (and I think rightly so) that they could overshoot into deflation territory so they stated easing to what they consider a current neutral position - somewhere in the 2.5% - 3% range.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#177

Post by davidw »

matsemann wrote: post #162

The other day at the store, in my smaaaall hometown, I overheard the cashier and an older man discuss crypto while I was waiting for my turn. They were discussing meme-coins they gambled on. Super weird to hear irl.

Sounds like shoeshine boy time.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#178

Post by jaco6 »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #148
jaco6 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child rearing is a possible solution—it is our evolutionary “purpose” to reproduce, after all, and most people in the developed world today aren’t doing it.

>Child rearing is a possible solution—it is our evolutionary “purpose” to reproduce, after all, and most people in the developed world today aren’t doing it. I doubt it, that's because to most people it does not feel purposeful, it's a chore. Most people who say it's purposeful are generally the most vocal ones, and I suspect the minority.

[dead]

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#180

Post by cj »

mbrumlow wrote: post #165
jaco6 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child rearing is a possible solution—it is our evolutionary “purpose” to reproduce, after all, and most people in the developed world today aren’t doing it.

A thought. What if we have judged the healthiest of a society on the wrong metrics. And the right one is birth rate? We might say things are bad for a society if it’s too dangerous or not enough food so the birth rate goes to near zero and as a result it dies. How is a society that has people being too busy or occupied with other task that neglects reproducing a better society than the latter? Obvious too much of a b…

Basically what you’re saying is that the healthiest society is the one whose population is growing the fastest?

I would think life expectancy would be a better measure of a healthy vs unhealthy environment.

Post reply on HN