3 ms·
Your attitude isn't unique, I'd describe it as "It's not a crash until the people/companies I consider fraudulent get destroyed." I hear it about some crypto i
by fullshark 4y ago
Your attitude isn't unique, I'd describe it as "It's not a crash until the people/companies I consider fraudulent get destroyed." I hear it about some crypto investors in particular. There's a lot of people who basically consider recessions cosmic justice and want a cleansing fire to reign down on certain entities/people they despise. I propose: that's not what a recession/crash is.
- phpthrowaway99 4y agoI would assume in a real crash, especially if we're comparing it to the 2000s tech crash, someone must get destroyed. I personally think companies that can't even make a car drive for a demo, something most at home diy ev hobby builders can do, and also lie about it, probably would go first in a crash. You propose that's not what a crash is. What is it then? And when can we say it's as severe as the early 2000s crash?
- fullshark 4y agoI just think of a crash as a sudden drop in asset values, we've seen that so far. A recession I think of as negative GDP growth for a couple quarters at least (i know i know but this is a reasonable definition and you know it) which we've also seen so far. So this is a crash/recession. It doesn't mean it will necessarily wipe out X. I don't know why it has to be as severe as Dotcom or Housing crashes. Doesn't seem to be a requirement to me. It has been incredibly severe for unprofitable tech companies looking for VC funding to keep them going indefinitely at least.
- shapefrog 4y ago"It's not a crash until the people/companies I consider viable and fundamentally sound get destroyed."