3 ms·
Because the private markets aren't offering many assets that compare well against these bonds if you take into account returns, risk and liquidity. BTW this is
by BenoitEssiambre 7y ago
Because the private markets aren't offering many assets that compare well against these bonds if you take into account returns, risk and liquidity.
BTW this is normal. Historically, negative real returns on stores of value were the norm. Before financial systems existed, almost all investments had negative returns if you didn’t put work and energy into them. To store value, you had to accumulate stuff, buildings or land. Most options either had high maintenance costs, were subject to risk of damage from natural causes and theft, were very volatile or required hard labor to get production out of.
Even in societies with financial systems, getting low risk, hassle free, liquid, positive real returns has been difficult for most of history. This just reflects the natural laws of thermodynamics that tell us that everything tends to decay without a constant supply of work and energy. In general, most things require maintenance to keep their worth.
The 20th century was probably the most notable exception. Because of unprecedented demographic and technological growth, positive risk free real returns were easy to find. The recency effect probably explains some of the confusion people have about this. It is possible that under favorable conditions, wealth can have positive returns and even compound into very good long run returns but it is not a guarantee and there is nothing natural about it. It may not continue forever, particularly amidst an aging and retiring population in a world no longer as rich in easy to exploit natural resources.
While people are used to get negative returns on short term purchases, you buy fresh vegetables at the supermarket, even if they degrade over time, many can’t seem to accept the normalcy of negative returns on longer term assets. In nature, squirrels’ nut caches have a certain percentage of losses from theft and spoilage. Real returns tending towards the negative is natural even if they can seem unusual for humans just out of the 20th century.
More here "The World Deserves a Pay Raise" (https://medium.com/@b.essiambre/the-world-deserves-a-pay-raise-302f25efd82a https://medium.com/@b.essiambre/the-world-deserves-a-pay-rai...)
- selestify 7y ago> This just reflects the natural laws of thermodynamics that tell us that everything tends to decay without a constant supply of work and energy. "Decay" is very subjective. The laws of thermodynamics only tell us that entropy (an objective quantity) must increase over time, but it does not tell us how it increases or whether this increase is desirable or not. Life itself exists only because the combination of life + the environment creates more entropy than just a lifeless environment. Yet few would describe life as a "decay" of physical elements into self-replicating structures. This is not to say that the phenomena you describe doesn't exist, it's just to say that the laws of physics at the scale of statistical mechanics are far removed from high-level processes at the scale of human society.
- SilasX 7y ago>BTW this is normal. Historically, negative real returns on stores of value were the norm. Before financial systems existed, almost all investments had negative returns if you didn’t put work and energy into them Citation needed? Government bonds historically paid something like 4%; here's the German government's from the 19th century, over a a time of low inflation and income taxes: https://qz.com/241890/the-complete-history-of-german-bond-yields-from-napoleon-to-angela-merkel/ https://qz.com/241890/the-complete-history-of-german-bond-yi... Italian Renaissance bonds never went below 5%, similar for the Dutch golden age: http://globalfinancialdata.com/7-centuries-of-government-bond-yields/ http://globalfinancialdata.com/7-centuries-of-government-bon...