4 ms·

Unless you're unlucky enough to have a short life, you're going to live through several boom and bust cycles, so get used to it. I've personally lived through t

Unless you're unlucky enough to have a short life, you're going to live through several boom and bust cycles, so get used to it. I've personally lived through the collapse of the LTCM hedge fund and Russian economy while I was at Credit Suisse in 1998, the dot-com bust while I was at eToys.com in early 2000s ($6Bn market cap then delisted from Nasdaq and sold for $2MM to KB Kids), the housing bust of 2007/8, and now the current stock market collapse which is just getting started. Every crisis presents opportunity, provided you're not just spending your life riding everyone else's coat tails. Busts are particularly good for entrepreneurs because we don't have to compete with all the stupid money out there feeding the swarming incompetents. A bust is a time for true innovators to rise from the ashes.

cowmoo728 4y ago
The boom and bust business cycle is very different than a protracted run of near zero growth
- gnicholas 4y ago
  When was there near zero growth? The last decade has seen a boom of VC investment and startup growth. There was the Great Recession before that, following the post 9/11 growth spurt. It seems like the last time there was no growth was perhaps the late 70s?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- netr0ute 4y ago
  A run of near zero growth is exactly the same as a bust, so I don't know what you're adding.
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    That's technically not true if you're running a DCA model (which most people do when they invest in the stock market - they invest a percentage of their earnings), since the price at which you invest is better under a bust scenario than a protracted run of zero growth.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  There's asset price inflation, productivity growth, technological growth, and population growth. I'm not sure why anyone thinks we need more people. Humans make up 34% of all land biomass. There are physical limits to technological growth. We're already getting close to the physical limits for how good a lot of things can get. Short of living in a fairytale, I'm not sure what people are hoping for. Productivity growth is predominately going to come from technological growth. However, much of the world is ridiculously under-invested in. We have generations of growth left here. Why do we need more people when ~70% of the world is ridiculously under-invested in? Asset price appreciation is good if you own assets - bad of you want to buy them. In an ideal world, I think assets would be valued based on some kind of sense - not whatever central banks decide.
- wardedVibe 4y ago
  3% a year in real terms is not near zero. It's what the actual state of the economy has been for decades, if not centuries.

cowmoo728 4y ago

The boom and bust business cycle is very different than a protracted run of near zero growth

gnicholas 4y ago
When was there near zero growth? The last decade has seen a boom of VC investment and startup growth. There was the Great Recession before that, following the post 9/11 growth spurt. It seems like the last time there was no growth was perhaps the late 70s?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
netr0ute 4y ago
A run of near zero growth is exactly the same as a bust, so I don't know what you're adding.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  That's technically not true if you're running a DCA model (which most people do when they invest in the stock market - they invest a percentage of their earnings), since the price at which you invest is better under a bust scenario than a protracted run of zero growth.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
There's asset price inflation, productivity growth, technological growth, and population growth. I'm not sure why anyone thinks we need more people. Humans make up 34% of all land biomass. There are physical limits to technological growth. We're already getting close to the physical limits for how good a lot of things can get. Short of living in a fairytale, I'm not sure what people are hoping for. Productivity growth is predominately going to come from technological growth. However, much of the world is ridiculously under-invested in. We have generations of growth left here. Why do we need more people when ~70% of the world is ridiculously under-invested in? Asset price appreciation is good if you own assets - bad of you want to buy them. In an ideal world, I think assets would be valued based on some kind of sense - not whatever central banks decide.
wardedVibe 4y ago
3% a year in real terms is not near zero. It's what the actual state of the economy has been for decades, if not centuries.