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

More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 640 posts

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#621

Post by [deleted] »

teddyh wrote: post #620
Manuel_D wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you can find cherry-picked pages of Facebook people acting out. Likewise, you can browse /r/LinkedInLunatics. But the vast majority of interactions on these platforms are better than on anonymous and pseudonymous platforms. Anonymity and pseudonymity are big enablers of bad behavior, since it shields reputational harm that would normally be incurred by engaging in that behavior.

I mean, public flogging also (arguably) reduces crime, but we don’t want to have it, for good reasons. Disallowing anonymity has a lot of negative effects for all but a select privileged few, as documented by the link I gave.

[deleted]

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#622

Post by runarberg »

SkipperCat wrote: post #618
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't take issue with the creation of Israel as a means to put all the displaced Jews somewhere. I take issue with that the land provided for this project was taken without the consent of any of the nations from which it was taken, which is colonialism and why it's impossible to separate Israel from the colonialist roots that helped create it. Just as it's impossible to not see it as an act of Western dominance tow…

"I take issue with that the land provided for this project was taken without the consent of any of the nations from which it was taken, which is colonialism and why it's impossible to separate Israel from the colonialist roots that helped create it" Who was the land taken from? It was owned by the British from WWI to '48. Before that, it was owned by the Ottoman empire, before that it was an Egyptian kingdom and goin…

This is gross history revisionism.

Israel unilaterally declared independence following what was in essence a civil war in Mandatory Palestine. The UN had partitioned the territory but Israel took much more than had been allotted to them. Israel also illegally expelled many Palestinians and refuses them the right of return to this day, which they do counter to international law. In 1967 Israel expanded even further and took the remaining Palestinian territories which they occupy to this day in the world’s longest occupation. To this day, Israel keeps taking more land from Palestinians e.g. by setting up illegal “security corridors” or opening new illegal settlements.

So to answer the question. The land was taken from the Palestinians. And it keeps being taken from the Palestinians, in defiance of a number of UN resolutions, to whom the British had given the mandate to.

In an alternative universe where Israel wouldn’t be colonial, there would not have been a civil war, Israel would not have unilaterally declared independence, but done so in agreement with Palestinians, the UK and the UN. They wouldn’t have expelled any Palestinians, and they wouldn’t have maintained a policy of maintaining an ethnic majority. Jews would live now as a minority in Palestine, hopefully with some minority protections mandated by the UN (and probably demanded by the UK as part of the independence agreement).

In a slightly less alternative universe where the Zionist national project still happens and Israel unilaterally declares independence, at any time after 1948, in an effort to right previous colonial wrongs, Israel would offer the expelled Palestinians the right to return and reparations for their years or decades in exile. They would dismantle their ethnodemographic policies, and either integrate the occupied territories into a single democratic (non-apartheid) Israel-Palestine or recognize an Independent Palestine at the 1967 borders with some freedom of movement between the two states (similar to Ireland and Northern Ireland). For as long as non of this happens. Israel’s current policies are an unbroken link to their colonial past.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#623

Post by Manuel_D »

teddyh wrote: post #620
Manuel_D wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you can find cherry-picked pages of Facebook people acting out. Likewise, you can browse /r/LinkedInLunatics. But the vast majority of interactions on these platforms are better than on anonymous and pseudonymous platforms. Anonymity and pseudonymity are big enablers of bad behavior, since it shields reputational harm that would normally be incurred by engaging in that behavior.

I mean, public flogging also (arguably) reduces crime, but we don’t want to have it, for good reasons. Disallowing anonymity has a lot of negative effects for all but a select privileged few, as documented by the link I gave.

And again, I've read your link and found the arguments lacking. It doesn't consider the fact that much of the bad behavior it identifies is enabled by anonymity. I'm not sure how public flogging relates to anonymity. There are alternatives to public flogging, like incarceration. By comparison, the lack of accountability and lack of disincentive to engage in anti-social afforded by anonymity is inherent to anonymity. There's no way to get the same level of social responsibility in an anonymous space.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#624

Post by Manuel_D »

portaouflop wrote: post #518
Manuel_D wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That page doesn't make a very compelling argument. Yes, bullying and harassment without an anonymous identity is potentially more damaging. But nowhere does it seem to consider that many of the bullies and harassers would only dare do so with an anonymous identity. Which has the better culture? 4chan, or professional settings and churches? Non-anonymous settings almost universally have better culture because people's…

How do you define “better culture”? I wouldn’t say you can compare churches and 4chan - one is an online activity with millions of people around the world joining; the other is a highly intimate affair conducted in a small community.

Exactly: the fact that people aren't anonymous and their behavior affects their standing in the community is a big part of why anti-social behavior isn't nearly as common as in anonymous spaces.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#625

Post by rqtwteye »

raincole wrote: post #487
DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't already, now might be a good time to sell some of that bitcoin

Yeah HN has been giving this advice since BTC was at 60k. And 30k. And 10k.

I mined a ton of bitcoin with a friend when it was really new and then forgot about it because it was useless at the time.

I kicked myself already at 1k and would have sold then. That is, if I hadn't thrown away the disk with they keys

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#626

Post by teddyh »

Manuel_D wrote: post #623
teddyh wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, public flogging also (arguably) reduces crime, but we don’t want to have it, for good reasons. Disallowing anonymity has a lot of negative effects for all but a select privileged few, as documented by the link I gave.

And again, I've read your link and found the arguments lacking. It doesn't consider the fact that much of the bad behavior it identifies is enabled by anonymity. I'm not sure how public flogging relates to anonymity. There are alternatives to public flogging, like incarceration. By comparison, the lack of accountability and lack of disincentive to engage in anti-social afforded by anonymity is inherent to anonymity.…

> By comparison, the lack of accountability and lack of disincentive to engage in anti-social afforded by anonymity is inherent to anonymity.

Possibly. One could argue that the problem is not nearly as closely linked to anonymity as you argue it is, but even if it was, we would still need to have anonymity, including all its drawbacks, in order to make participating in the public sphere possible to all, instead of being restricted to a privileged few.

> There's no way to get the same level of social responsibility in an anonymous space.

You do know that this very forum qualifies an an anonymous space, right?

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#627

Post by Manuel_D »

teddyh wrote: post #626
Manuel_D wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And again, I've read your link and found the arguments lacking. It doesn't consider the fact that much of the bad behavior it identifies is enabled by anonymity. I'm not sure how public flogging relates to anonymity. There are alternatives to public flogging, like incarceration. By comparison, the lack of accountability and lack of disincentive to engage in anti-social afforded by anonymity is inherent to anonymity.…

> By comparison, the lack of accountability and lack of disincentive to engage in anti-social afforded by anonymity is inherent to anonymity. Possibly. One could argue that the problem is not nearly as closely linked to anonymity as you argue it is, but even if it was , we would still need to have anonymity, including all its drawbacks, in order to make participating in the public sphere possible to all, instead of b…

> but even if it was, we would still need to have anonymity, including all its drawbacks, in order to make participating in the public sphere possible to all, instead of being restricted to a privileged few.

You realize non-privileged people have participated in non-anonymous forums for ages. What on earth justifies the statement that without anonymity public discourse is impossible for non-privileged people? You realize that just because an article on geekfeminism.com claims something is true... doesn't actually make it true?

It's just a demonstrably false statement. Take, say, labor organizing. People who weren't privileged participated in the public sphere in a non-anonymous fashion. The Civil Rights movement was spearheaded by people who were de jure second class citizens. I could go on with example after example of people who weren't privileged participating in public discourse with their real identities. I'm truly at a loss as to how one can assert that anonymity is necessary to "make participating in the public sphere possible to all, instead of being restricted to a privileged few" in spite of the all the non-privileged people throughout history who participated in public discourse under their real identifies. It's objectively not necessary.

> You do know that this very forum qualifies an an anonymous space, right?

Correct. Which is why commenters are emboldened to say demonstrably false things, like claiming only privileged people are capable of participating in non-anonymous public discourse. I'm willing to bet that without the shield of anonymity people would actually think through such a statement and consider the number of non-privileged people that have participated in public discourse. They'd think twice before making patently false statements under their real identities.

But with anonymitiy, one's reputation isn't tarnished by making false statements. So here we are.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#628

Post by RandomThoughts3 »

zahlman wrote: post #594
RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, value investing still work. The key tenant of value investing is that there exist companies which based on their financial metrics are fundamentally under valued by the market (in opposition to what market price efficiency predicts). From there, an insane market should provide you with even more opportunities to value invest.

Nitpick: a tenet is a foundational principle or belief; a tenant is someone who pays rent. (Which I suppose could be used as a metaphor for a dividend-paying stock, but.)

[flagged]

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#629

Post by webninja »

itake wrote: post #546
rsanek wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found this to often also be the case, but leverage completely blows these numbers up. you'd be right if someone was willing to let you lever up 5:1 and bet on index funds. however you can only accomplish this with real estate, and with such leverage the required rate of return is far lower to make it worth it.

TQQQ is 3:1. Every time I ask people to factor in their time in managing the property (yes, even time spent finding the property to buy counts), they end up way behind.

Volatility decay means if QQQ is flat, TQQQ is negative. It also consumes your dividends.

Re: More men are addicted to the 'crack cocaine' of the stock market

#630

Post by another_poster »

dan-robertson wrote: post #240
another_poster wrote: post #211

Most people have a gambler’s mindset about the stock market: > […G]ambling in financial markets often goes undetected […] because individuals confuse their actions [i.e., speculating] with investing. The typical person speculates on the market — buying low during their working years, and hopefully selling high during their retired years.

I don’t think this is the right analysis. One should generally expect a positive return over time from investing in equities: you are giving up money now and taking on risk, and you are compensated for it by the return on investment. The word ‘speculating’ is generally referring to a different kind of activity from the kind of investing a typical person gets through paying into a pension. I don’t want to make claims…

Fair point. There’s a real difference in attitude between speculation and saving. Most people buy stocks to save for retirement, not to speculate that they’ll have enough money for retirement.

But most people aren’t investors, either. Typical people buy stock for their returns, not for their productive capacity. My point is that’s speculation.

Most people have a speculator’s mindset. They would be happy to make a windfall on the market. For example, who wouldn’t be happy to own a plot in downtown Detroit before an economic boom raised land prices? Or stock in a startup before an established company announced they would acquire it?

Although someone who puts money in the stock market for retirement may intend to save money, since a 401k seems like just any another asset, but it’s quite different from other assets: Bank accounts fund lending to companies for productive investments. Homes provide a residence. Bonds provide money to countries and companies for investment. But when individuals put money in the stock market, it’s because they hope the asset will appreciate.

Post reply on HN