4 ms·
The boom and bust business cycle is very different than a protracted run of near zero growth
by cowmoo728 4y ago
The boom and bust business cycle is very different than a protracted run of near zero growth
- gnicholas 4y agoWhen 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 agoA run of near zero growth is exactly the same as a bust, so I don't know what you're adding.
- medvezhenok 4y agoThat'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 agoThere'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 ago3% 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.