Live data from Hacker News

The (real) dead economy theory

pluralistic.net

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#61
What's dead is mainstream economic science's assumptions about free & fair markets, with well-informed agents that act rationally. We all know that's bs. As I've heard an economist phrase it:

One can study economics for 1000s of hours. Not spend a single hour on psychology, or economic history. And then obtain a bachelors (or even masters) degree in economics.

This, while it's crystal clear that markets aren't always fair. Playfields tilted. Buyers & sellers ill-informed, or not free in their decisions. Small investors can't touch instruments in institutional investors' toolbox. Historic mistakes are made again & again.

And psychological effects matter. Markets have a 'sentiment' (bull vs bear), investors fomo driving buy/sell frenzies, etc.

So is it any surprise that valuations are irrational? Let's face it: stock markets are a casino, filled with gullible fools & deep-pocketed crazies. Oh yes, some sane ones in there too.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be much more of a belief that the reason this stuff has an appreciable value to speak of is because it's either creating a channel for society's productivity or it's creating a position to skim pennies off of society's productivity. But less and less does it feel like productivity is even in the equation anymore. What the quoted statement describes is much closer to a Ponzi scheme than what finance is a…

Is there a particular instrument or transaction you feel creates a scheme? What specifically would you disallow, and what would be the downstream impact you imagine of doing so?

It's like I said, the degree to which productivity is in the equation.

Money just looping around until settling on a few people, otherwise doing nothing else = zero productivity, zero value

Action which results in a bit of productivity = a bit of value

Action with results in lots of productivity = lots of value

I'd say the exact degree of separation where it becomes "a problem" is roughly equal to the exact number of sand grains that form a pile. I can tell you one area where society is already suffering greatly from dead economy and that's the housing market. The downstream impact of that industry not being realistic is happening right now.

Also I would like to refer people to a story called "The Golden Goose." Everyone seems familiar with it but it doesn't seem like most people have seen the end.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy gets bigger every year. Therefore, any similarly proportioned large "thing" becomes the largest of all time. Uber lost tons of money for years, I remember the complaints about them. Investors made lots of money because they believe in future value. You're not being forced to make that bet - "money losing" is great for us if we aren't invested!

IPO investors in Uber didn’t actually make a lot of money. The stock has only gone up by around 7% per year since going public. I can make over 4% guaranteed by putting the money into a CD. Ironically, we are being forced to make that bet, thanks to NASDAQ’s new indexing rule changes made just for SpaceX. I think what you’re describing is essentially a form of “inflate away the debt.” Sure, if we wait enough decades…

I wasn't thinking about IPO investors - the funding rounds before that are where the real money is made.

I am not describing inflating away debt. I'm talking about returns.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a particular instrument or transaction you feel creates a scheme? What specifically would you disallow, and what would be the downstream impact you imagine of doing so?

It's like I said, the degree to which productivity is in the equation. Money just looping around until settling on a few people, otherwise doing nothing else = zero productivity, zero value Action which results in a bit of productivity = a bit of value Action with results in lots of productivity = lots of value I'd say the exact degree of separation where it becomes "a problem" is roughly equal to the exact number of…

Every derivative of productivity is measuring future productivity. What specific product were you thinking didn't?

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPO investors in Uber didn’t actually make a lot of money. The stock has only gone up by around 7% per year since going public. I can make over 4% guaranteed by putting the money into a CD. Ironically, we are being forced to make that bet, thanks to NASDAQ’s new indexing rule changes made just for SpaceX. I think what you’re describing is essentially a form of “inflate away the debt.” Sure, if we wait enough decades…

I wasn't thinking about IPO investors - the funding rounds before that are where the real money is made. I am not describing inflating away debt. I'm talking about returns.

I figured you might be speaking about the pre-IPO investors.

Uber’s post-IPO stock performance has been a lot like “inflating away” the mediocre performance of the company. Its growth since IPO hasn’t been able to beat out any of the major indexes. Gaining only 7% value per year means that Uber’s valuation peaked at IPO in terms of real value against alternative corporate assets and considering currency inflation. There’s no real reason to have bought their stock on the public stock market in retrospect. The only winners are pre-IPO investors.

The problem is, pre-IPO investors are just a small group of people that aren’t really relevant to the long term viability of a company or the success of the economy that surrounds that company. Their success doesn’t really impact anyone else outside that small group of people. They have figured out a system for personal profit that doesn’t rely on building a viable company at the most basic level (and, at least, Uber eventually became viable, but the new wave of AI companies doesn’t look to be in the same financial realm).

The end result is a wealth transfer to the pre-IPO investors from post-IPO investors, employees, customers, etc.

When I say “inflate away” what I mean is that SpaceX leadership has pulled unusual levers in the IPO system itself to manufacture a high valuation to maximize wealth transfer from post-IPO investors to pre-IPO investors, and as a result the long-term best-case scenario is probably that the valuation will come back to earth slowly over time via below-market returns, with the worst case being a huge correction. If the stock was more fairly valued at IPO, there would be more actual investment potential for post-IPO investors. Instead, that potential is being captured almost entirely by pre-IPO investors, and not in the usual and more sensible way (higher risk = higher reward).

In other words, the usual formula is inverted: pre-IPO investors are shouldering the least risk for the greatest returns.

Tesla has been able to sidestep this dead economy theory by at least shipping a lot of cars and being a reasonably profitable automaker. They at least ran a real business. There wasn’t any pressing reason to sell your shares. Fast vehicle shipment growth at a profit was able to at least give Tesla some level of justification for their valuation.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't thinking about IPO investors - the funding rounds before that are where the real money is made. I am not describing inflating away debt. I'm talking about returns.

I figured you might be speaking about the pre-IPO investors. Uber’s post-IPO stock performance has been a lot like “inflating away” the mediocre performance of the company. Its growth since IPO hasn’t been able to beat out any of the major indexes. Gaining only 7% value per year means that Uber’s valuation peaked at IPO in terms of real value against alternative corporate assets and considering currency inflation. Th…

I'm not worried about any of that. I don't care whether SpaceX is successful or not, or whether those investors make money or not.

My only comment is that as time advances, "largest of all time" is common, because our world grows in population and both realized and potential value.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figured you might be speaking about the pre-IPO investors. Uber’s post-IPO stock performance has been a lot like “inflating away” the mediocre performance of the company. Its growth since IPO hasn’t been able to beat out any of the major indexes. Gaining only 7% value per year means that Uber’s valuation peaked at IPO in terms of real value against alternative corporate assets and considering currency inflation. Th…

I'm not worried about any of that. I don't care whether SpaceX is successful or not, or whether those investors make money or not. My only comment is that as time advances, "largest of all time" is common, because our world grows in population and both realized and potential value.

I see what you mean now, although it’s a little confusing to me against your previous comments in the thread.

It seemed like you were trying to say that companies like uber looked pretty insanely overvalued until they’re not. Everyone kept saying that because they didn’t think about how the current number is always the biggest number.

That’s why I pointed out that, well, yeah, Uber is a big successful company, but they haven’t actually been a particularly good investment relative to the market since they IPOed.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not worried about any of that. I don't care whether SpaceX is successful or not, or whether those investors make money or not. My only comment is that as time advances, "largest of all time" is common, because our world grows in population and both realized and potential value.

I see what you mean now, although it’s a little confusing to me against your previous comments in the thread. It seemed like you were trying to say that companies like uber looked pretty insanely overvalued until they’re not. Everyone kept saying that because they didn’t think about how the current number is always the biggest number. That’s why I pointed out that, well, yeah, Uber is a big successful company, but th…

Good point - you're right, my personal feelings about these companies do bleed into my language. :)

I do think that these companies look insanely overvalued but actually are likely that value, and that investors are thinking on a timespan where that's okay. It's not always a bad call to pick a company as opposed to investing in the entire market - people have preferences about the technologies and ideas they want their investments to support!

I think Uber has been doing well relative to the S&P. 60-something vs 70-something percent over the last five years?

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#69
post #5
post #3

> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else. I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment…

AI is currently a massive money sink. Yes or No?

There's a distinction.

- For the AI provider it is a massive money sink due to cost/revenue maths

- For the AI consumer it's not a massive money sink if you arrange things so your ongoing costs are lower than your savings

It isn't a simple yes or no overall, only per side of the fence.

Post reply on HN