Yea so buy land if you’re so paranoid about becoming Japan. It’s an island nation with a very unique history. Not a great counterpoint to current US and global economics.
The UK is at more or less the same price as it was in 2000. France same as 2008. Meanwhile SPY is up 2.75x in that period. The US seems to be the anomaly. Value doesn’t always go higher. Maybe the USA is special, maybe not.
Is that with dividends? Watch out because the German DAX actually does have reinvestment in it iirc. Most of the others don't.
> Buying the dip isn’t some secret strategy. Time is the secret strategy. Ah yes, the good ol' "time in market beats timing the market". Of course, that assumes that markets trend upwards in the (very) long term. Which... if past performance is any indicator of future performance [0], the past 100 years provide a fairly compelling narrative. [0] Another mantra: it's not.
> the past 100 years provide a fairly compelling narrative. In the US. The Nikkei is down over 25% from its peak 32 years ago .
And before the peak it was the greatest asset bubble of all time! "A $100,000 investment in Japanese large cap stocks in 1970 would have turned into $5.7 million by 1989." [0]
you have to take risk to earn returns. Sometimes that risk actually eventuates, and you have to either keep going, or take the loss. That's why you must know the time horizon for your investments - if you know you need the money "soon", you cannot actually invest in the stock market.
You have to take calculated risks to earn returns. FOMO at your own risk. If you are 30 and don’t need the money you put in SPY until 70, don’t sweat it. You’ll be fine. But let’s not pretend blindly taking risk is OK because some return is expected. Time horizon and some relative valuation context is important. Buying into the stock or housing market at extreme historic levels of valuations like those in late 2021 a…
> But let’s not pretend blindly taking risk is OK because some return is expected.
Exactly. I have seen this idea float around that just because they have taken a risky position they will be able get better rewards. Risk may be necessary for above market rate returns, but it is not sufficient. A proportionate amount of those taking the risk will be cleaned off the amount that was risked. Why do you think its not going to be you ! Of course when you use time effectively or use other hedges one can reduce the exposure.
Problem with "long term investing" as I see it is that to realize the gains you must get out of the market at approximately the correct time. That is difficult psychologically because if you have been able to increase your worth by doing what you have been doing so far you are likely to keep on doing it. Then one day the next crash comes. All of a sudden having been a long term investor does not help so much any more…
You should clearly have a purpose for your investing goals and adjust your investing style based on risk. So if your goal is retirement and you're 30, you can tolerate higher risk because if the market crashes, you've got 30 years to wait for it to recover. If you're 60 and retiring in a few years, your risk tolerance is low. And you can slowly adjust your portfolio in between.
This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that.
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.
The entirety of human history since prehistoric times to the present gives evidence contrary to your claim. Human societies have experienced exponential growth since forever, with only occasional brief temporary setbacks. Even the Black Death is a blip on the exponential curve of economic progress.
Exponential growth, indeed economic growth at all, started with the industrial revolution. For instance, many places in Eurasia had the same GDP in 500 that they had in 1400.
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…
> 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. I am wondering where you previously got your information? At one point ten years was considered about the minimum time window for investing in stocks. To give an example, an old rule of thumb was to have 100 minus your age percent of your retirement s…
It's been easy to promote bonds when we've been in 40 year bond bull run
Why can't technological advancement stave off climate change damage? Why cant renewables replace fossil fuels, and continue human expansion? Why can't space exploration and settlement be where the future growth occurs?
No technology can work around limits given by thermodynamics.
We are far from the limits of thermodynamics. You'd have to wait till nearer to the heat death of the universe for that to have an effect on the economy.
> The COVID fiscal canon blew growth and inflation skyward. COVID is going on for two years now. What really changed is the Russia-Ukraine war, this goes with higher energy and higher food prices (most of the wheat and fertilizers come from that part of the world) that all that stuff trickles down, as they don't know how to fix the metrics now (i guess no one was prepared for such a turn of events...) Most of the met…
> What really changed is the Russia-Ukraine war, this goes with higher energy and higher food prices Green transformation is the real cause of high energy and food prices. EU's Fit for 55 gave Putin green light to invade Ukraine...
Lol, very much in the contrary. Had the EU invested heavily in a proper Green New Deal (in ~2010-11 for example, around the time recovery was needed, instead of implementing austerity), we would have robust economic growth instead of a decade of stagnation, and near complete independence of Russian oil and gas, so much so that we could turn the taps off on 24/Feb and suffer only mild consequences.
You should clearly have a purpose for your investing goals and adjust your investing style based on risk. So if your goal is retirement and you're 30, you can tolerate higher risk because if the market crashes, you've got 30 years to wait for it to recover. If you're 60 and retiring in a few years, your risk tolerance is low. And you can slowly adjust your portfolio in between.
This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that.