3 ms·

> In an era defined by slow growth and flatlined productivity (if not outright economic stagnation) and marked by widening inequality and underemployment, “mone

> In an era defined by slow growth and flatlined productivity (if not outright economic stagnation) and marked by widening inequality and underemployment, “money” feels at once deadly serious and stupidly silly. Seen from this viewpoint, the pandemic economy isn’t an anomaly but a heightened version of one possible future: a world where money is abundant but safe long-term investments are rare and where “getting rich quick” is less an American pathology and more the best bet for a stable life — assuming you think such a thing is possible with ecological catastrophe looming. If you’re supposed to buy stocks as a bet on the future condition of a business, why would you buy stock in a brick-and-mortar retail video-game chain unless you didn’t really believe in any future at all? How different is the stock market from betting on soccer? What’s the point of investing safely when Elon Musk can create and destroy millions of dollars of value with a couple of tweets? This paragraph with its doom and gloom seems apt in that it leaves out the aggregate stock market. In parallel with this, there’s a story of passive investment which is booming. Why take risks when you can put your money in here and just watch it go up reliably? The cynic in me contrasts those stories by looking at the doom and gloom one and pinpointing the line “safe long-term investments are rare” and rolling my eyes, wondering: if a safe broad market index gaining 10% per year for a few generations now isn’t enough, what is? Is it just not rich enough or quick enough? The curmudgeon on me really comes out now. I love the article, but not the “woe is us” aspect. (I especially loved the description of MMT as Keynesian economics as told by Morpheus)

thewarrior 6y ago
It’s not enough to do things like buy a house.
meowkit 6y ago
Both points of view here are off imo. Growth based on real productivity is slowing (stagnate even), but it should be noted maybe growth is moving linearly, but we expect non-linear improvements (100 -> 110 is 10% growth, 1000 -> 1010 is 1% growth). As you point out, growth via financial instruments is all fine and dandy. Better than ever even. But the stock market is a model of the economy, but it doesn’t represent individual experiences. But distribution in ownership of capital very much follows a power law. So while people in the market are making great paper gains, there are many who are left out. We are growing, but relative inequality is growing faster. Psychologically, people can handle absolute differences in comparisons of wealth, but relative ones are what cause much of the views and behaviors we see today. Such as “woe is us”. Of course this is all my synthetic anecdotal speculation.

thewarrior 6y ago

It’s not enough to do things like buy a house.

meowkit 6y ago

Both points of view here are off imo. Growth based on real productivity is slowing (stagnate even), but it should be noted maybe growth is moving linearly, but we expect non-linear improvements (100 -> 110 is 10% growth, 1000 -> 1010 is 1% growth). As you point out, growth via financial instruments is all fine and dandy. Better than ever even. But the stock market is a model of the economy, but it doesn’t represent individual experiences. But distribution in ownership of capital very much follows a power law. So while people in the market are making great paper gains, there are many who are left out. We are growing, but relative inequality is growing faster. Psychologically, people can handle absolute differences in comparisons of wealth, but relative ones are what cause much of the views and behaviors we see today. Such as “woe is us”. Of course this is all my synthetic anecdotal speculation.