Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | freyr's comments login

Interesting, my interface is extremely laggy and the video stutters. The apps and remote are nice though.

> Wouldn't want him to get in trouble at work for comments like that

In the off chance that he wasn't one of the engineers who took the fall.


I'm pretty sure the phrase was just used in terms of the nature of a free market.

Are you suggesting that because the U.S. stock market has risen during the tiny blip in history that the U.S. has been an uncontested world superpower, we can expect it to rise forever?


What else would you have us expect? That when the US is no longer relevant, and the stock market is permanently declining, that somehow a stash of dollars will be meaningful?

No, for all practical purposes, go ahead and expect it to rise forever. Anything that would make that untrue would make your investment balance unimportant.


> What else would you have us expect?

I wouldn't expect unsubstantiated claims that have no basis in reality to be stated as plain fact, as in:

> the trend over a decade or more will always be "up".

This statement is demonstrably falsifiable since we've had several decades where the inflation-adjusted returns of the stock market are negative.

> Anything that would make that untrue would make your investment balance unimportant.

I'm sorry, but reframing your false statement in terms of a false dichotomy (the either the U.S. stock market is going up, or your investments are worthless) does not make things right. The double-negative rule doesn't apply here.


How to Protect Your Life Savings from Hyperinflation & Depression, 2nd edition by John T. Reed

http://johntreed.com/hyperinflationdepression.html


In that case you would invest in assets, not cash or stocks. A chunk of land with a garden and a couple of goats would be very handy when a loaf of bread costs $10 billion at the store.

Yes, exactly, I have 3 acres, 8 goats, 30 chickens, bees, 14 fruit trees, and lots of gardens boxes. I would love it if my investments grow, but I'm covered in extreme cases either way.

(And I have my own well and produce my own solar power to boot.)


Then what if you invested in a bread factory? You'll be part owner of a business that can sell it's wears for $10 billion.

The $10 billion in that scenario isn't worth any more than ~$3 is today, so it's not actually as lucrative as it sounds. :) Plus because there's hyperinflation happening, the $10 billion you sold your bread for may not be enough to even buy a cup of flour tomorrow, so it's actually worse than owning a bread factory now. It would be better to keep the bread, which will be worth $25 billion tomorrow, except that bread goes bad eventually. So instead of holding bread, you hold assets that don't lose value over time. You don't want to get caught holding this hyperinflating cash because it devalues so quickly. So either you trade your assets directly for other things that you need, or use a different currency that isn't going crazy.

It seems a bread factory might be such an asset. But too big for most people to own individually.

Yup it certainly could be, although it loses value in the form of maintenance costs and can only earn value in the form of bread. So if you can find good bread-trading partners or can sell your bread for non-devaluing currency then that can work out.

Except that, in many nations around the world, the population growth rate is negative. There is no shortage of space, or food, or energy, but the populations are aging and couples are having fewer children. This is the situation in Japan, Germany, Russia, South Korea, and almost all of Eastern Europe.

The U.S. population growth rate has also been in decline for the past 50 years, dropping from 1.7 percent to 0.7 percent, heading towards negative growth if this trend continues.

So much for "an ever increasing population" to bolster a market that always goes up.


> the wealth of the nation goes up.

What is the scientific basis by which we can expect this to continue indefinitely? In fact, all evidence points to the contrary.


Not my area of expertise but I'd imagine it's a function of population and interconnectedness of economies. I do see that some nation economies will be hurt and others helped as everything will probably revert to a mean to some degree.

I saw this data on how fast China's economy had grown recently and thought it relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_China

What evidence is contrary?

I do imagine this growth will be asymptotic though on a longer timespan as we need to slow down population growth due to the environmental impact. But who knows? At some point maybe we will be mining asteroids and finding wealth (and places to spend it) outside of Earth.


> Not my area of expertise but I'd imagine it's a function of population and interconnectedness of economies.

So the population growth rate of the U.S. is declining, and many developed nations now have negative population growth rate.

> I do see that some nation economies will be hurt and others helped as everything will probably revert to a mean to some degree.

Right, so would you expect the U.S. economy to be helped or hurt by the decline of its economic dominance and a reversion to the mean?

> What evidence is contrary?

No nation, empire, or civilization in history has managed to sustain global economic dominance indefinitely.

There are probably many events that could cause the U.S. economy to contract. But even if the U.S. economy continues to grow, though at a much slower pace than competitors or the global economy, I just don't expect the U.S. markets to continue rising in a meaningful way. People in this thread are claiming that local markets always rise as though they're stating a law of physics, and it's absurd.


> No nation, empire, or civilization in history has managed to sustain global economic dominance indefinitely.

The US stock market is made up of mostly multi-national companies. Its a financial center for earth, not an isolated economy.

If we talk about civilization at this point in time then its the global civilization of earth we are talking about.


> The US stock market is ... a financial center for earth

This is true currently. But again, there's no reason to assume this will continue forever.

> If we talk about civilization at this point in time then its the global civilization of earth we are talking about.

Nice idea, but I'm unconvinced. What does "the global civilization of earth" even mean? The world always seems more connected than the day before. Of course, in 1914 it seemed more connected than ever before. In 1939 too. Yet our global civilization split apart at the seams and we were thrown into two of the most devastating wars ever. And both hugely impacted the economies of the nations involved. The U.S. has been at war almost continuously for the last 25 years. With whom? The global civilization of Earth?

Even if you restrict your perspective to purely economic matters, to a "global economy," this seems dubious. If we truly have a global economy, it's one disproportionately controlled by a single nation -- a situation many nations are probably unsatisfied with, but currently unable to change.

So you've reached the conclusion that other nations are now content to sit back and let the U.S. run the global economy forever. Where's the evidence? Just because no other country has been able to challenge the U.S.'s dominance over the world economy in the past 50 years, doesn't mean they've accepted this as the natural state of affairs.


How long of a time period? Is 20 years sufficient? 200 years? Historically, most empires rose to greatness and then imploded in fewer than 200 years. So I guess we shouldn't look over too long a time period.

We've enjoyed the repercussions of the United States' rapid ascent from a fledgling colony to a world superpower. If we look at the stock market during this period of remarkable growth, it's very easy to conclude that markets will always go up. Of course, this would be a very foolish conclusion.


Some apes have already learned to speak. We call them humans.

If you're seeking approval from other people to determine if you're "good enough," you're heading down the wrong path.

Also, this is a ridiculous conversation. The actual work of these teenage wunderkinds is very rarely on par with the work of similarly talented, but more experienced professionals. It's almost always about the feat. And that's okay, because the feat is indicative of future potential.

-----


Yes. The author suggests the categorizations are either cultural or biological; another possibility is that they're defined due to common human experiences that transcend cultures.

-----


Yes. Perhaps it also works when you decide to cater to the x% of consumers who are quality-insensitive. Many people will endure years of bad service, complaining the entire time while taking no action.

I imagine someone there has figured out the inflection point where they can reduce the quality of their service without losing a significant number of customers. But perhaps that's giving them to much credit.

-----


>consumers who are quality-insensitive

That is one benefit of the modern internet. As a customer that is quality-sensitive about many products, I can 'evangelize' to insensitive customers and attempt to bring them into the fold and start demanding better quality products, thereby increasing the quality I receive from the product myself.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: