2 ms·
>I'm not sure whether people understand just how big of a problem this is. Resilient economies are well-balanced economies. You seem to be under the misconcept
by chmod775 6y ago
>I'm not sure whether people understand just how big of a problem this is. Resilient economies are well-balanced economies.
You seem to be under the misconception that the stock market somehow reflects the actual economy, in fact you seem to think that the stock market is the economy.
Those "top 5" companies taken together are less than 5% of the actual US economy, regardless of whichever way you want to calculate that (revenue/profit+wages vs GDP, ...)
The ones hurt by an investment failing are just the investors themselves, which is the whole point of investment. You take the risk and reap the rewards.
The only exception is when a "too big to fail" whatever (this narrative is complete bs btw) made bad investments again, so the government, and by proxy the taxpayer, steps in to finance the gambling addiction of people who are politician's retirement plans. Now you have made a considerable impact on the actual economy.
- throw0101a 6y ago> The ones hurt by an investment failing are just the investors themselves, which is the whole point of investment. You take the risk and reap the rewards. Counter-intuitively, investing in the Top 10 stocks has actually gotten you worse results than the market average. If you took Top 10 stocks at the beginning of each decade (1920, '30, …, 2010), and followed how it did for that decade (e.g., 1920-1929) it would done worse than the market average (by 1.51% annually on average): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foqswJT3Spc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foqswJT3Spc