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

It's also the same reasoning used by a Thanksgiving Turkey.

The farmer has always come in and given the turkey food, so logically he will continue to do so. And it is true. Until it isn't. But the cost of that one day when it isn't is very high for the turkey.

Biden raised taxes.

Decades of deficit spending demonstrate the feds can print adequate amounts of fiat currency, and issue debt, to continue to bail out the banksters, bail out foreign cruise line owners, and attempt to police the world and police outer space. USA could drop the federal personal income tax and continue on with the charade.

Tax-cuts to the rich meant they had more money to invest in stock-market. And the tax-cuts to the corporations meant they made more profits which made them a more attractive target for stock-investors. Both effects meant the stock-market went higher and higher. And so here we are stock market doesn't seem to be going up because there are no new tax-cuts to the rich.

There is inflation which is bad for the poor people. But people have work and are getting paid. That increases demand which causes inflation. Would it be better if people did not have money to buy anything, which would cause prices to go down?

If supply-side could flex then inflation would not happen, but it can not because of pandemic which is still closing up China and Russia whose oil is out of the market for many would be buyers, and Ukraine whose wheat is not reaching world markets.

Trying to blame Biden and Fed for the inflation is Monday-morning-quarter-backing. For anybody who blames them I would like to say: Are you seriously asking us to believe that if you had been elected president of USA, or of Fed, things would be so much better now?

Why though ? Their 70-80s boom was always going to be short lived, geographically they are resource poor as well.

The demographics of Japan weren’t a sudden change or surprise their population is always been heading in this direction , coupled with their strong anti immigration culture and barriers to entry. It was bound to happen sooner or later .

It is extremely unlikely any one company /market can keep ahead of every single tech /product evolution cycle and always be the best .

While it is hard to guess correctly when that will happen as it did in 90s , but it will always inevitable sooner or later .

——

The growth of U.S. economy post ww2 and importantly post Bretton woods have been phenomenal is very true, however were already a powerhouse , the preceding 300 hundred years have also been explosive growth catching one wave after after .

Largely thanks to immigration of some form or other .

Modern America has always been built on the backs and hard-work of immigration. First European settlers fleeing stagnant economies, actual slavery for a while, economic slavery? of poor driven by famine or lack of opportunity later like the Irish wave or Chinese etc, then those affected by various wars, and most recently top talent from most countries in the world .

It has always been exploitative even now it is , most immigrants legal or illegal are paid less than their peers for example

Illegal immigration is more well known on how they are paid less, even In legal work visas like say H1B changing companies is hard because out of work even for a week you to leave the country immediately, changing employers also affects the Permanent residency qualifications, so people on those visas move jobs less, on average get 10-20% less and have lesser negotiating power, companies know this and use those visas as cost saving technique.

Despite all the problems around immigration, U.S. still remains the country most open to immigration , few countries come close to the volume of immigration legal and illegal U.S. supports, and path to citizenship .

Japan is other end of the spectrum in terms of immigration, which for the economy is a big problem because of such aging population.

Unless we find a way to 'produce' (the P in GDP) without increasing entropy by digging up stuff (oil, metals, whatever) and then releasing them into our ecosystem once we're done with them, those limits seem to be pretty close though.

That's not just me thinking that. That's the Club of Rome, in the 70's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

Their conclusion at the time:

"the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity"