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

Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 282 posts

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#61

Post by [deleted] »

verteu wrote: post #55
recuter wrote: post #10

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…

The article provides a counterpoint: If you invested in "the market" in 1851, you'd still be underwater (in real terms) in 1932. See page 44.

[deleted]

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#62

Post by [deleted] »

recuter wrote: post #10

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…

[deleted]

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#63

Post by [deleted] »

b33j0r wrote: post #41

My primary criticism is that it took me several minutes to see a chart. The exposition is very interesting. I don't judge a paper by its cover, but it kinda took a lot of work to read something that was described as visual! Is there a nuance to this publishing process that makes this make sense?

[deleted]

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#64

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #62
recuter wrote: post #10

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…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#66

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #51
ceejayoz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you had $8M in 1923 and kept it under a mattress, it would still be $8M today Saving account interest rates haven't been 0% for the whole last 100 years. It's not a great investment, but you'd have substantially more than $8M.

How much more would you have with a savings account? Apparently the $140M number was bonds. Edit: Or, theoretical bonds that match inflation and don't actually exist?

In a non-funny-money-world, government bonds would yield more than expected inflation.

No one would ever give the government money expecting to lose money.

Only in a world where you can always count on the government to lower interest rates ad-infinitum to keep itself solvent which pushes up the value of your bonds to someone who's willing to pay more money to lose the same amount of money later (a greater fool - although, are you a fool if you've been able to count on this like clockwork for the last 30 years?).

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#67

Post by danielmarkbruce »

dot1x wrote: post #11
metacritic12 wrote: post #9

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…

> getting rid of dividends makes no sense and is borderline intellectually dishonest just to make the point How so? Once you retire, you don't let dividends reinvest. Makes perfect sense.

It's not a chart of "how much money does Jonny have".

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#68

Post by awb »

sauwan wrote: post #43
antisthenes wrote: post #24

The reason this kind of analysis is irrelevant is that human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Sure, fossil fuels in the form of coal has been exploited before, but nothing on the scale of coal/gas/oil use that started after the Great Depression and ramped up to peak per capita consumption circa 1970s if memory serves. So you always have to look at that historic period discounting that, a…

>Tech advancements are slowing down Are they? I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years, but it seems like the advances in things like AI and Genomics are rapidly accelerating and may lead to growth like we haven't seen in several decades...

> I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years

Really? 20 years is the difference between a generation being raised pre/post:

* smart phones

* streaming services (endless free content)

* massive computing storage / processing upgrades

* mass adoption of eCommerce

* video calling

* ubiquitous social networking

* EVs

* mRNA vaccines

* Mars exploration

* LHC

* 3D printing

It amazes me to look back at 2003 and see how far we’ve come.

Re: Stock market charts you never saw (2021)

#69

Post by dot1x »

roussanoff wrote: post #50

A paper on a similar topic but with much better execution: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015, https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.... . Among other things, it spans multiple countries, and includes housing in the comparison.

Would be great if you explained how's it better or if it reaches different conclusions.
Post reply on HN