3 ms·

The US stock market represents something like 60% of all stock market value, but the US GDP is only 25% of all global GDP. If you are long to stock market, you

The US stock market represents something like 60% of all stock market value, but the US GDP is only 25% of all global GDP. If you are long to stock market, you have to believe that this kind of disproportionate behavior continues because there's a lot of confidence in the US markets and the dollar.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> If you are long to stock market, you have to believe that this kind of disproportionate behavior continues because there's a lot of confidence in the US markets and the dollar. Or, the structure of international capitalism means firms in the core extract value from the peripheries. The US stock market isn't “stocks of firms tied only to their operations in the US”.
- ttunguz 5y ago
  There's a really good article on this from Lynn Alden that I will paste here that talks about how this dynamic actually implies that the US is selling its long-term capital assets in favor of short-term capital goods that depreciate, so it's actually a negative for the US. https://www.lynalden.com/january-2022-newsletter/ https://www.lynalden.com/january-2022-newsletter/
candiddevmike 5y ago
How much of that is represented by tech giants? I personally think the US economy is starting to revolve around them too much, to the point where the economy serves their interests, not ours. They're "too much of an inconvenience to fail", they've tied every one of us to their success either through the free/cheap services they offer or their outsized influence on our retirement.
- bshipp 5y ago
  I remember that song from 2008. I'm still very bitter about it. Fine, be too big to fail. But why do they get treated any differently than a small bank in Kansas that gets upside-down and needs the FDIC to roll in and take it over? As far as I'm concerned, too big to fail means nationalized and broken up until they are small enough to not pose a threat to the entire economy. When nationalized because they are on the brink of failure, investors get shoved to the back of the line after all other claimants and wiped out. I mean, this model has served capitalism well for eons. Why are the self-proclaimed captains of capitalism, Wall Street, the ones who get a free pass to stay in business? Now I'm all angry again.
- ttunguz 5y ago
  I could see that. There's been a transformation in top 10 companies in the last 20 years. They used to be consumer packaged goods and energy companies, and now they are technology companies. Speaking of somebody who's very much pro technology, I think technology has improved the lives of billions of people, reduced information asymmetries, reduce the cost of goods and services, and provided more democratic access to lots of things, but there are some negatives. Fwiw, all of information technology comprises about 10% of the US economy
  - redband 5y ago
    The rise and success of many of today's tech giants has simply created a fertile environment of mature technologies that a future class of deep tech companies replacing them will use. Value is cyclical, the worth of FAANG and their ilk will pass.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If you are long to stock market, you have to believe that this kind of disproportionate behavior continues because there's a lot of confidence in the US markets and the dollar. Or, the structure of international capitalism means firms in the core extract value from the peripheries. The US stock market isn't “stocks of firms tied only to their operations in the US”.

ttunguz 5y ago
There's a really good article on this from Lynn Alden that I will paste here that talks about how this dynamic actually implies that the US is selling its long-term capital assets in favor of short-term capital goods that depreciate, so it's actually a negative for the US. https://www.lynalden.com/january-2022-newsletter/ https://www.lynalden.com/january-2022-newsletter/

candiddevmike 5y ago

How much of that is represented by tech giants? I personally think the US economy is starting to revolve around them too much, to the point where the economy serves their interests, not ours. They're "too much of an inconvenience to fail", they've tied every one of us to their success either through the free/cheap services they offer or their outsized influence on our retirement.

bshipp 5y ago
I remember that song from 2008. I'm still very bitter about it. Fine, be too big to fail. But why do they get treated any differently than a small bank in Kansas that gets upside-down and needs the FDIC to roll in and take it over? As far as I'm concerned, too big to fail means nationalized and broken up until they are small enough to not pose a threat to the entire economy. When nationalized because they are on the brink of failure, investors get shoved to the back of the line after all other claimants and wiped out. I mean, this model has served capitalism well for eons. Why are the self-proclaimed captains of capitalism, Wall Street, the ones who get a free pass to stay in business? Now I'm all angry again.
ttunguz 5y ago
I could see that. There's been a transformation in top 10 companies in the last 20 years. They used to be consumer packaged goods and energy companies, and now they are technology companies. Speaking of somebody who's very much pro technology, I think technology has improved the lives of billions of people, reduced information asymmetries, reduce the cost of goods and services, and provided more democratic access to lots of things, but there are some negatives. Fwiw, all of information technology comprises about 10% of the US economy
- redband 5y ago
  The rise and success of many of today's tech giants has simply created a fertile environment of mature technologies that a future class of deep tech companies replacing them will use. Value is cyclical, the worth of FAANG and their ilk will pass.