4 ms·

The question for a real investor in a stock market is, is it going up or down over a 10 year period or if it's a company the same thing applies in a period of 1

The question for a real investor in a stock market is, is it going up or down over a 10 year period or if it's a company the same thing applies in a period of 10 years is it going up or down. Outside of that in any stock market you are gambling.

vpribish 7y ago
pretty arrogant statement there, buddy - decreeing what a real investor is permitted to do. There are many things happening on the stock market on many timescales and the participants would definitely not consider themselves gamblers.
- foldingmoney 7y ago
  You're not wrong, but holding for shorter time scales is typically called 'trading', whereas 'investing' is holding for several years or more.
themodelplumber 7y ago
There are lots of other Q's too: - Am I just being prospective and intentionally introducing some contained risk to my financial plan (fine) - Am I doing this for entertainment (fine) - Is this for learning purposes (fine) - Did I just get a tip which is near-insider or insider-quality (well...party politics can lead to this) So, some gambling can be bad in some sense sure, but not necessarily if informed by various conditions or analyses. A big part of HN psychology skews toward low financial risk + low tolerance for nuanced financial thinking so I thought I'd mention that.
lawrenceyan 7y ago
Even if you take the long view, I’m not sure how much faith you can really put into the Chinese market. Authoritarian governments as shown by past history, don’t have a great track record for long term stability unfortunately. Who knows though, maybe the Chinese government will manage to make a smooth transition towards a more democratic system without the violent revolutions that previous incarnations have had to deal with respectively. Now is probably a critical moment in determining whether such a future scenario is realistic, considering the slowing economic growth of China and the need to transition towards a service oriented rather than manufacturing based economy. Economic recession is usually one of the first steps towards civilian revolt in authoritarian regimes.
- outlace 7y ago
  Most governments in history were authoritarian and many were stable for hundreds of years. With modern technology, I don’t see why authoritarian governments are necessarily more vulnerable than democratic ones.
  - lawrenceyan 7y ago
    That’s sort of a bad argument though isn’t it? There’s a reason why those governments no longer exist. FYI, a fall towards authoritarianism being a key factor to an ultimate collapse. Being authoritarian from the beginning just makes you start that much closer to edge.
    - chii 7y ago
      or authoritarian gov't but with competent bureaucrats and significant drop in corruption and bribery could in fact, be more stable than a democratic society.
      - lawrenceyan 7y ago
        The problem with that “strongman” autocrat ruler kind of thinking is that, while in the short term it can bring benefits, it’s ultimately unsustainable precisely because people don’t live forever and you can’t guarantee that your successors will be as competent or intelligent. The bugs with authoritarianism reveal themselves at this point, as the wide powers given to the aforementioned incompetent people in power results in extremely bad decisions being made, ultimately leading to a degradation in society and either collapse or a coup. Such a cycle is extremely unstable, and it only takes a brief glance at history to see the results for yourself. There’s a reason why in today’s world, empires and monarchies have been replaced by republics with systems of checks and balances that are put in place specifically to avoid these effects.
      - gbersac 7y ago
        How could an autoritarian society could not be corrupt ? When knowing the right person (the auritarian leader or any of its men) give greater wealth than being efficient ?
YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
Well, ASHR's price has changed by about 0% between Nov 2013 and Feb 2019, and by about 10% to this day. It was also +125% at some point. So even in the long run investing in diversified top-of-the-country-stock-market ETFs may be "just a gamble".

vpribish 7y ago

pretty arrogant statement there, buddy - decreeing what a real investor is permitted to do. There are many things happening on the stock market on many timescales and the participants would definitely not consider themselves gamblers.

foldingmoney 7y ago
You're not wrong, but holding for shorter time scales is typically called 'trading', whereas 'investing' is holding for several years or more.

themodelplumber 7y ago

There are lots of other Q's too: - Am I just being prospective and intentionally introducing some contained risk to my financial plan (fine) - Am I doing this for entertainment (fine) - Is this for learning purposes (fine) - Did I just get a tip which is near-insider or insider-quality (well...party politics can lead to this) So, some gambling can be bad in some sense sure, but not necessarily if informed by various conditions or analyses. A big part of HN psychology skews toward low financial risk + low tolerance for nuanced financial thinking so I thought I'd mention that.

lawrenceyan 7y ago

Even if you take the long view, I’m not sure how much faith you can really put into the Chinese market. Authoritarian governments as shown by past history, don’t have a great track record for long term stability unfortunately. Who knows though, maybe the Chinese government will manage to make a smooth transition towards a more democratic system without the violent revolutions that previous incarnations have had to deal with respectively. Now is probably a critical moment in determining whether such a future scenario is realistic, considering the slowing economic growth of China and the need to transition towards a service oriented rather than manufacturing based economy. Economic recession is usually one of the first steps towards civilian revolt in authoritarian regimes.

outlace 7y ago
Most governments in history were authoritarian and many were stable for hundreds of years. With modern technology, I don’t see why authoritarian governments are necessarily more vulnerable than democratic ones.
- lawrenceyan 7y ago
  That’s sort of a bad argument though isn’t it? There’s a reason why those governments no longer exist. FYI, a fall towards authoritarianism being a key factor to an ultimate collapse. Being authoritarian from the beginning just makes you start that much closer to edge.
  - chii 7y ago
    or authoritarian gov't but with competent bureaucrats and significant drop in corruption and bribery could in fact, be more stable than a democratic society.
    - lawrenceyan 7y ago
      The problem with that “strongman” autocrat ruler kind of thinking is that, while in the short term it can bring benefits, it’s ultimately unsustainable precisely because people don’t live forever and you can’t guarantee that your successors will be as competent or intelligent. The bugs with authoritarianism reveal themselves at this point, as the wide powers given to the aforementioned incompetent people in power results in extremely bad decisions being made, ultimately leading to a degradation in society and either collapse or a coup. Such a cycle is extremely unstable, and it only takes a brief glance at history to see the results for yourself. There’s a reason why in today’s world, empires and monarchies have been replaced by republics with systems of checks and balances that are put in place specifically to avoid these effects.
    - gbersac 7y ago
      How could an autoritarian society could not be corrupt ? When knowing the right person (the auritarian leader or any of its men) give greater wealth than being efficient ?

YjSe2GMQ 7y ago

Well, ASHR's price has changed by about 0% between Nov 2013 and Feb 2019, and by about 10% to this day. It was also +125% at some point. So even in the long run investing in diversified top-of-the-country-stock-market ETFs may be "just a gamble".