3 ms·

Really? I would argue that a bubble is a psychological bug that causes investors to ignore the numbers. They're usually right there in front of you, but the b

by j_baker 14y ago

Really? I would argue that a bubble is a psychological bug that causes investors to ignore the numbers. They're usually right there in front of you, but the bubble effect short-circuits the rational thought process that tells you not to invest without checking the data. Now, I will be willing to grant that perhaps we're about to be in a bubble, but now we're venturing into the land of speculation, aren't we? If gathering data to tell us what the markets are going to do were easy, bubbles wouldn't ever begin in the first place, would they?

incongruity 14y ago
How, exactly, do you see me as arguing that anything but numeric foolishness is going on here? Investors, in bubbles, frequently find ways to justify the numbers – often with talk of how the old rules don't apply, etc., etc. In this specific post's case, however, the author fails to see the lack of quality in the numbers which he (barely) uses. Trusting bad numbers without really digging into them is little different than "ignoring the numbers", as you put it. They're two sides of the same coin – sloppiness because of excitement or other failed thinking. As for your last argument – I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, just a few lines above you argue that the numbers are usually "right in front" of investors and that bubbles are caused by ignoring them... but then you argue exactly counter to that and say that seeing bubbles isn't easy and that data can't tell you when there's a bubble. I strongly disagree with that last point – the housing bubble was definitely spotted using data before it burst, as was the last tech bubble. It's just that few wanted to believe that the old fundamentals still applied. But thus far, they always seem to.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
When people are willing to grant that perhaps we're about to be in a bubble, we're in a bubble right now.

by j_baker 14y ago

incongruity 14y ago

How, exactly, do you see me as arguing that anything but numeric foolishness is going on here? Investors, in bubbles, frequently find ways to justify the numbers – often with talk of how the old rules don't apply, etc., etc. In this specific post's case, however, the author fails to see the lack of quality in the numbers which he (barely) uses. Trusting bad numbers without really digging into them is little different than "ignoring the numbers", as you put it. They're two sides of the same coin – sloppiness because of excitement or other failed thinking. As for your last argument – I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, just a few lines above you argue that the numbers are usually "right in front" of investors and that bubbles are caused by ignoring them... but then you argue exactly counter to that and say that seeing bubbles isn't easy and that data can't tell you when there's a bubble. I strongly disagree with that last point – the housing bubble was definitely spotted using data before it burst, as was the last tech bubble. It's just that few wanted to believe that the old fundamentals still applied. But thus far, they always seem to.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

When people are willing to grant that perhaps we're about to be in a bubble, we're in a bubble right now.