Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen the movie Margin Call? There’s a great scene where the CEO of a Goldman-style bank is recapping the last 100+ years of global financial collapses and he mentions, “we just can’t help ourselves.” https://youtu.be/LtFyP0qy9XU One of the best banking movies I’ve ever seen. Jeremy Irons absolutely nails his role.
Will Emerson: Jesus, Seth. Listen, if you really wanna do this with your life you have to believe you're necessary and you are. People wanna live like this in their cars and big f-in' houses they can't even pay for, then you're necessary. The only reason that they all get to continue living like kings is cause we got our fingers on the scales in their favor. I take my hand off and then the whole world gets really f-i…
When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
271–280 of 408 posts
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#272Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#274Sad 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…
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Past performance is not a predictor of future results. If we continue to grow GDP (~energy consumption) at about 1%/y, we’ll boil oceans in 400 years. That’s what exponential growth means.
Most of that GDP growth will not be on Earth in 400 years.
I'm pretty convinced that increasing human activity so much to increase the background radiation to 373K is never going to happen, the point is more that any exponential energy growth eventually can't continue.
In a way though it's already happening, the GDP ~ energy consumption equivalence from the GP assumption does not hold (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.GDP.PUSE.KO.PP). We'll just keep inventing ways for the GDP number to keep growing exponentially in questionable ways for the system to keep going, until we can't anymore.
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen the movie Margin Call? There’s a great scene where the CEO of a Goldman-style bank is recapping the last 100+ years of global financial collapses and he mentions, “we just can’t help ourselves.” https://youtu.be/LtFyP0qy9XU One of the best banking movies I’ve ever seen. Jeremy Irons absolutely nails his role.
Will Emerson: Jesus, Seth. Listen, if you really wanna do this with your life you have to believe you're necessary and you are. People wanna live like this in their cars and big f-in' houses they can't even pay for, then you're necessary. The only reason that they all get to continue living like kings is cause we got our fingers on the scales in their favor. I take my hand off and then the whole world gets really f-i…
In the short term: I don't see what the problem is with growing debt at this point.
Oh and, btw, the FED will never repay its balance sheet. It's just not going to happen, ever, under any circumstances.
Which gets me to my, seemingly rather unique, position: this is not a financial crisis (at least not yet). There's problems yes, but there's also a lot of money to solve them. Which means they will get solved, quickly. And just because we're recovering from the mother of all supply crunches and the numbers are going down to readjust, we see a lot of models crying "recession". There is no real recession. There's a recession in money paid for things. There's no recession in physical goods being distributed, quite the opposite. People aren't suddenly vastly more indebted (like in 2008) than they can be.
There was such a big problem with supply and demand that when we all collectively decided to take away to artificial roadblocks, which turned out to be the point some idiot Russian decides to use to ... and supply and demand had such a big and such a wide ranging adjustment to make that it took the the law of supply and demand ~12-18 months to adjust prices, of which some 6-8 months are still in the future. Now supplier prices are adjusting down, not for housing, not for finance, but for everything else, and everybody cries recession. Wrong. Supply just shot through the roof and demand is actually rising. The same refrain is seen everywhere. Prices for X ROCKETED up, and are coming back down rather quickly. Take your pick cars, flights, food, chips, ... There are confusing factors, such as with housing: people have been using SUBSIDISED money for housing and this is being wound down, people are getting kicked out of the housing they're in. So ... lots of complaints. But this is actually an indication, of course, of too much demand, not too little. Too much demand, too much people yelling here's money, now give me ... This shouldn't lead to a recession!
Of course my problem is ... I'm "fighting the FED". The FED disagrees with me. Of course. I'm fighting JUST the Fed at this point. I'm still on the side of the ECB, BOJ and PBOC ...
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 b…
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#278(1) People were deeply and extremely risk-averse coming out of the 2008 crisis. And now we are _starting_ to see the other end of that spectrum. However, we are still far from the heights/throes of the dot-com boom. Those were some insane times when nothing even mattered.
(2) But keep in mind, the main driver of global economy is still increasing standard of living and middle class. And that’s far from over. We are still roughly 50% into land grab.
(3) If current pace of inflation persists, then you want to be in equities chasing cash flow in enterprises with pricing power. What you don’t want is to stay in cash. It appears counterintuitive because of all the things we experienced in 2000 and 2008. A vast majority of investors still base investment decisions with those two crises in mind. It’s a significant handicap.
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just described a hobbyist. Institutions don’t sit on cash for that long, nor do they buy S&P in any significance. [0] Berkshire Hathaway - https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK
Interesting that you cite BRK, who famously have been sitting on ~150bn in cash recently. Professional investors absolutely sit on cash all the time.
Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just described a hobbyist. Institutions don’t sit on cash for that long, nor do they buy S&P in any significance. [0] Berkshire Hathaway - https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK
Interesting that you cite BRK, who famously have been sitting on ~150bn in cash recently. Professional investors absolutely sit on cash all the time.