3 ms·

> But you know, I think that for everyone person like me taking advantage of these "arbitrage" scenarios, there are like 10 people paying full price. They keep

by mmt 8y ago

> But you know, I think that for everyone person like me taking advantage of these "arbitrage" scenarios, there are like 10 people paying full price. They keep this economy going. That seems contrary to what the article is saying, which is that for every person taking advantage, there are zero people paying full price, because it's the investors who are keeping this economy going. As such, it may never end without a regulatory end to the winner-take-all scenario, as a different comment suggested.

metalliqaz 8y ago
All it would take for it to end is for investors to stop investing in money-burners.
- mmt 8y ago
  Isn't that a tautology, though? My point is that actual[1] investors have an incentive to pour their money into money-burners because if just one of those initially money-burning is the next Google, Facebook, Amazon, or whatever overwhelming winner-take-all breakout profitable company, they will have more than justified dumping all that cash into the losers. [1] for lack of a better term. I've never quite understood why it's considered "investing" to buy stock in a company if someone other than the company itself previously owned the stock. That cash isn't going into company coffers. This activity seems more like asset ownership/speculating than asset allocation (which is what I think of when I hear the word "invest").
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    Your point is well taken. I think I just don't agree that government stepping in is the only way to end the cycle. Seems to me it can/will die of natural causes when the "bubble" bursts.
    - mmt 8y ago
      But what bubble? Where's the irrationally increasing asset values at a macro level? Where's the "greater fool" that's buying it all up? Without that, there's nothing to burst. Moreover, this has been going on for so long, at least since (before) the dot-com boom, and we've had quite a few economic downturns. It's not very credible that any bubble would survive that.

by mmt 8y ago

metalliqaz 8y ago

All it would take for it to end is for investors to stop investing in money-burners.

mmt 8y ago
Isn't that a tautology, though? My point is that actual[1] investors have an incentive to pour their money into money-burners because if just one of those initially money-burning is the next Google, Facebook, Amazon, or whatever overwhelming winner-take-all breakout profitable company, they will have more than justified dumping all that cash into the losers. [1] for lack of a better term. I've never quite understood why it's considered "investing" to buy stock in a company if someone other than the company itself previously owned the stock. That cash isn't going into company coffers. This activity seems more like asset ownership/speculating than asset allocation (which is what I think of when I hear the word "invest").
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  Your point is well taken. I think I just don't agree that government stepping in is the only way to end the cycle. Seems to me it can/will die of natural causes when the "bubble" bursts.
  - mmt 8y ago
    But what bubble? Where's the irrationally increasing asset values at a macro level? Where's the "greater fool" that's buying it all up? Without that, there's nothing to burst. Moreover, this has been going on for so long, at least since (before) the dot-com boom, and we've had quite a few economic downturns. It's not very credible that any bubble would survive that.