4 ms·

> but in aggregate stocks will go up by a modest amount on decade long scales. They have, but why must they? We’re heading into a decades long period of hyper-

> but in aggregate stocks will go up by a modest amount on decade long scales. They have, but why must they? We’re heading into a decades long period of hyper-aging in much of the world and the commensurate rise in capital costs, an energy crisis in Europe that is far from over, the decline of East Asian mass manufacturing and associated inflation, a labor shortage in the US right when it has to massively increase domestic production, and a shortage of all raw materials where Russia or Ukraine were major suppliers. I suppose in 20 years when the markets have adjusted suppliers, the damage is priced in already, and capital supplies are recovering in the US thanks to the Millennials, it might start looking up here, but from a similar or higher base than now? That’s not obvious to me.

jfengel 4y ago
It isn't absolutely certain, but it is true that technology has a way of moving forward at a remarkably consistent rate. That is the ultimate driver of real growth. That does seem like it should flatten eventually, and maybe that's now. But I can't anticipate a radical change and can only guess that tomorrow will be more or less like yesterday. That is potentially fraught but the best I can do.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > technology has a way of moving forward at a remarkably consistent rate For centuries the general pattern has been improving technology, followed by better nutrition and healthcare, followed by greater populations and productivity, followed by greater capital to invest in technology and on and on. Over more recent decades this was put into hyperdrive with the boomer population bubble in the west spurring massive consumption and then massive capital investment, and as developing nations tapped into global trade this lead to a massive rise in the standards of living and cheap mass manufacturing. However the meteoric industrialization of developing nations has lead to record drops in fertility and so the likes of China are already reaching hyper-aging. We may have already hit peak global population or will soon as hyper-aged communities start to predominate around the globe and increased death rates follow. Better technology can't induce increased consumption in the aged right when we have fewer younger people to develop and less capital to fund that development. TLDR: that seems like a recipe for less technological development, lower GDP, and therefore possibly a decades long depression in stock prices.
988747 4y ago
As long as technology and human society progresses, then yes, GDP is guaranteed to rise, and stocks are guaranteed to rise a bit more than GDP, because they represent the best, most innovative part of the economy (mom and pop's grocery stores are not traded on Wall Street, technological startups are)
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > As long as technology and human society progresses, then yes, GDP is guaranteed to rise My whole point is that it looks like human society globally is going to decline rapidly and, in some regions, catastrophically. Old populations don't consume as much, once they get old enough they don't produce as much, how would GDP grow then? Well that is the looming reality for Europe, China, Russia, Japan, Canada etc. The USA is relatively ok there but it's just a matter of time before we get there too unless birthrates veer sharply towards at least replacement level.

jfengel 4y ago

It isn't absolutely certain, but it is true that technology has a way of moving forward at a remarkably consistent rate. That is the ultimate driver of real growth. That does seem like it should flatten eventually, and maybe that's now. But I can't anticipate a radical change and can only guess that tomorrow will be more or less like yesterday. That is potentially fraught but the best I can do.

nyokodo 4y ago
> technology has a way of moving forward at a remarkably consistent rate For centuries the general pattern has been improving technology, followed by better nutrition and healthcare, followed by greater populations and productivity, followed by greater capital to invest in technology and on and on. Over more recent decades this was put into hyperdrive with the boomer population bubble in the west spurring massive consumption and then massive capital investment, and as developing nations tapped into global trade this lead to a massive rise in the standards of living and cheap mass manufacturing. However the meteoric industrialization of developing nations has lead to record drops in fertility and so the likes of China are already reaching hyper-aging. We may have already hit peak global population or will soon as hyper-aged communities start to predominate around the globe and increased death rates follow. Better technology can't induce increased consumption in the aged right when we have fewer younger people to develop and less capital to fund that development. TLDR: that seems like a recipe for less technological development, lower GDP, and therefore possibly a decades long depression in stock prices.

988747 4y ago

As long as technology and human society progresses, then yes, GDP is guaranteed to rise, and stocks are guaranteed to rise a bit more than GDP, because they represent the best, most innovative part of the economy (mom and pop's grocery stores are not traded on Wall Street, technological startups are)

nyokodo 4y ago
> As long as technology and human society progresses, then yes, GDP is guaranteed to rise My whole point is that it looks like human society globally is going to decline rapidly and, in some regions, catastrophically. Old populations don't consume as much, once they get old enough they don't produce as much, how would GDP grow then? Well that is the looming reality for Europe, China, Russia, Japan, Canada etc. The USA is relatively ok there but it's just a matter of time before we get there too unless birthrates veer sharply towards at least replacement level.