3 ms·

My lifetime might not be long enough for "the long run." Any longer than that and your 200 years means very little.

• Unseelie 16y ago
  The argument is that stocks have been the best asset class investment in each decade for the last two hundred years, not that it takes two hundred years. I'm going to guess that you'll live for at least another decade, and tell you to go right ahead and consider that the long run. If you've any multiples of decades, you're even more set.
  • _delirium 16y ago
    That certainly isn't true. For example, stocks were not the best asset class in the 2000s (bonds did much better this past decade). The linked page is just giving broad "stocks are generally better", but isn't doing decade-by-decade comparisons (which would be interesting to see).
    • Unseelie 16y ago
      Granted. But aside from the last decade, the article does claim that stocks win. (from 1930 to 1996). The recent decade is astoundingly bad...especially considering all the neat, new things we've gained..
      • HSO 16y ago
        off the top of my head, US stocks in the 70s were also flat over about a decade; as they were in the 30s (counting from '29); and probably some other decade before that, but stocks were not mainstream then
  • mistermann 16y ago
    > The argument is that stocks have been the best asset class investment in each decade for the last two hundred years, not that it takes two hundred years. But that is factually incorrect. "stocks have been the best asset class investment in each decade for the last two hundred years" That is a totally incorrect statement. To be proper I should post specific statistics rebutting this, but I don't have them at this time. If you are genuinely interested you can look it up yourself.