61–70 of 85 posts
>> Rather, what we need to do is to calibrate the physical economy such that we can benchmark the monetary against the material. This enables us to avoid the futility of measuring the monetary only against itself. Garden-variety Gold Standard quackery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risk analysis depends highly on your views of the world? "Are we in/heading towards a recession?""will the stock market continue its explosive growth"? "Do I as a person favor stability or prefer to take a bit of risk?" All these will influence your EV.
Well yes, precisely. Which is why nobody can give this guy an objective answer to his question -- it's entirely dependent on him and his views. That being said, there is absolutely an analytical way to approach the problem, which is what I outlined.
For an internet forum, I've found it easier to ask direct, actionable questions like "should I buy this couch" than "is [couch brand] good?". Even if what I really wanted to get at was the former. Maybe the brand isnt good but the price is a steal. Maybe the brand is so utterly trash that you couldn't give it away. But putting the brand into the question instead of a direct 'thing' changes the discourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't make sense. But that is exactly how policy makers justify how "the economy is doing good!" The GDP was never intended to be used as an indicator of national economic well being; only a simple statistic to measure how much money is exchanged between people. But it only takes a few examples counter to what a public service should do to show that GDP reliance creates anti-patterns. e.g. rising healthcare cost…
The GDP number is an example of "all models are wrong, some are useful". You'll inevitably oversimplify at least _something_ if you try to boil down the economy to a single number. GDP is still useful. I don't think there are examples of countries that had drops in GDP without being in deep trouble. It exploits the fact that economies [almost] never change quickly, so when you're looking at just one country, the GDP…
I think the modern indicator is how GDP growth last year would have been almost entirely flat had it not been for the massive amounts of AI spending. Something that as of now (regardless of thoughts of long term job aspects) is only constrainting the material market.
I don't fault the author for that usage because I know they are basically using the same language such policy makers use, and using it to disprove a really odd (but common) usage of GDP as this way to measure long term prosperity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurry, then, while your money is still worth something and there's farms to be had. I did and never looked back, no mortgage, no loans, no nothing. Use your money to become less dependent on future money. In the end it is independence which gives you security, not money in the market or on the bank.
I support this view, though in my own deep thinking about it all, I've come to see that all things are leased. Life itself is leased. We are all on borrowed time with borrowed resources and social contracts. This affects me because the urgency toward ownership and being less dependent on future money is prudent in some ways, but also naive in others? When I think about owning property and being free of monthly rent,…
Owning and living on a farm is not for everyone as it does tie you down more than a random apartment somewhere. If you're the type who wants to fly off to some trendy destination on a whim a farm might not be for you.
* Energy physics puts an upper bound on material wealth
* The disparity between notional and material wealth is large and growing
* Notional wealth figures are largely speculative / fictitious
Claims that could be true (if empirically verified):
* Material wealth is decreasing
* Energy is decreasing
* The monetary system will collapse
Claims that have been implied but not demonstrated or argued:
* There is a causal link between decreasing energy supplies and monetary system collapse
Overall it smells like 2004-era peak oil doomerism. I’m not saying it’s wrong, it could just be early. Intrigued but not convinced.
The problems this article outlines are very real, but the explanation for the underlying mechanics doesn't really pass any kind of a sniff test for me. The central thesis is that real economic growth is stagnating because the overhead for producing energy grows with time. But this is not the case! Fossil fuels will run out eventually, yes, but nearly every other type of energy production does not suffer from this, an…
It points out a problem but ignores the obvious solution. We want the nominal value of stocks, houses, and essentially everything to continually increase. The escape hatch is that these can increase in value slower than inflation and thus be reduced in real value.
"Just build more houses" is the fix for many (but not all) of the US economy problems. Not sure about the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applies there too.
Claims that ring true: * Energy physics puts an upper bound on material wealth * The disparity between notional and material wealth is large and growing * Notional wealth figures are largely speculative / fictitious Claims that could be true (if empirically verified): * Material wealth is decreasing * Energy is decreasing * The monetary system will collapse Claims that have been implied but not demonstrated or argued…
Sure, but that's such a high upper bound that it may as well be false from our perspective in 2025. We use a miniscule fraction of the energy we receive from the sun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ahh, we can all buy the farm together. ;) I've been watching my investment accounts, particularly the TSLA fraction, and see-sawing between "This has got to collapse soon, I should..." and "You cannot time the market, idiot". I'm dissatisfied with the inaction, but I can't come up with a coherent theory about how I should act... Bleah.
Recognize that holding is an action and a choice, too. If you don’t have a coherent theory to {act}ively hold an asset, you probably shouldn’t be acting to hold it, and be acting to sell it. This is equally true for TSLA and NVDA as it is for VOO and BRK. Why? Because when prices are too low you need to be able to hold (and ideally buy) with conviction and when prices are too high you need to be able to sell with con…
My own personal financial history has been more damaged by actions taken, than by forbearance and waiting. "Time in the market beats timing the market", style. So I wait for the moment when I've got Something Better To Do with the money, and then I act. And try not to second-guess later.
The problems this article outlines are very real, but the explanation for the underlying mechanics doesn't really pass any kind of a sniff test for me. The central thesis is that real economic growth is stagnating because the overhead for producing energy grows with time. But this is not the case! Fossil fuels will run out eventually, yes, but nearly every other type of energy production does not suffer from this, an…
It points out a problem but ignores the obvious solution. We want the nominal value of stocks, houses, and essentially everything to continually increase. The escape hatch is that these can increase in value slower than inflation and thus be reduced in real value.