It feels like manipulative lying to me when they show the distribution of PM2.5 in the USA through that heat map, where the scale of pollution only goes to 15 when the most non-European block countries are way higher than 15.
> Stablecoins enable instant, borderless, programmable transactions, but current blockchain infrastructure isn’t designed for them: existing systems are either fully general or trading-focused. Tempo is a blockchain designed and built for real-world payments.
Once you take into account AML and KYC laws, which will obviously be enforced should this gain any sort of adoption. What will be different in practice?
I don’t see that happening, mostly because it wouldn’t benefit Trump in any way. He’s already free to (crypto) grift as much as he wants, he doesn’t need looser AML laws. Probably going to go the way of the strategic BTC reserve.
All those statements made sense to me at the time. And I have no doubt that one of these days, someone will make a correct prediction. But who the hell know what and when.
Diversify, be reasonable and be prepared for it to happen someday. But freaking out with any new prediction of doom is not the winning strategy.
One interpretation is that asset owners as a class have complete control in our system and they will always be made whole no matter what happens.
This may require extracting additional rents from consumers, from workers, from renters, from debtors (including the government) but whatever changes have to be made to protect asset holders will be made regardless of the cost. An example of this in action was the collapse of SV Bank where the rules of our federal deposit insurance program were rewritten on the fly to protect the depositors. Imagine having an insurance policy, incurring an uncovered loss, and then compelling the insurance company to retroactively rewrite your policy to cover the loss!
This interpretation seems accurate to me. I think the big concern is what happens once the asset and passive wealth class have squeezed the working class dry. And the governments don't have enough wealth for a welfare state solution. What is the point of working hard and smart and trying to innovate as a young person without family wealth when you can't even achieve basic economic security.
Yea, after the pandemic I've stopped making any predictions about the stock market and bubbles.
It's clear we're living in an illusion, but I'm pretty sure there are enough people invested in that illusion that it won't stop until it is no longer physically possible to maintain. I'm increasing convinced that when whatever dream we're living in ends, it will end catastrophically, but I'm not even certain I'll live to see that happen.
A great work of art. One that identifies this spectrum of feeling. But one that should be taken with a grain of salt, a subjective arrangement of visual material as captured by the BBC.
It's less of an illusion but more that the reality is separating into two, one which we live and breathe as day-to-day working class/consumers and another that caters to the market makers of government & private sector.
I believe their plan is to offload the risk to the chains. I've been asked by several firms if I would be interested in joining them - so I assume that want to lock up their assets on the chain or want to offload risk to it. I'm more keen on the latter.
Still - nobody make any sudden moves and we'll ride out what remaining value we can squeeze.
> The global pandemic will tank the stock market - the market did crash and then Fed stepped in. Rates were cut and Fed
> War in Ukraine will tank the stock market - Market did go down by -30% between Jan-Oct 2022 and went nowhere for sometime after that.
> High interest rates will tank the stock market - Impact for this remains to be seen. Even during 2008 the high interest rates risk persisted for couple of years before the crash. So, I'd give it more time.
> Tariffs will tank the stock market - Did we not see a 20% drop before tariffs were put on hold for 90 days?
> IA will tank the stock market - I don't have much conviction on this one.
It is true that no one knows when a prolonged market crash like 2008 will happen. Maybe never. Government has figured out that Fed intervention can help the market stay afloat. So, maybe unless Fed doesn't step in for a long time these predictions will come true.
The flip side of this is that investment returns of a diversified portfolio (net of inflation) is slowly going down. The choices are to either concentrate or find alternative investing vehicles. That is one of reasons private equity is out looking for alternate income sources like buying up houses and hiking up the rents etc.
You can watch the Big Short. Michael Burry started paying out premiums on CDS in 2005. The premiums were huge. He got into a fight with his biggest investors and then had to freeze withdrawals. So, that he could still pay the premiums on the CDS. Did he falsely predict the top?
The way I see it, prices are too high. War is one thing, but it's abroad and the restrictions have been minimal. But interest rates went from <1% to 4.5% without valuations going down or profits going up. This means that investors are pricing companies as if though interests rates can be lowered. I don't think they can, because inflation in the US already quite high despite the 4.5% interest rates and with these tariffs upon that, it probably can't be lowered. For this reason I think companies should be priced using the 4.5% interest rate as a best guess, maybe 4% works, maybe 3.5%, but they're current priced as if though the interest rate is is <1%.
Tesla has a P/E ratio something like 26 times what other well-run automotive companies have. Boeing has a price like Airbus, despite no profits, etc.
Commercial real estate prices have gone down, and that's reasonable, but you've had both the interest rate increases and this WFH+hybrid remote thing becoming common, and since the interest rates have gone up from such a low level I think this is still overvalued, because 1% -> 2% should in theory mean halving the value if the rent is constant, and it went <1% to 4.5%.
I think it's a miracle that there hasn't been a crash. I wonder what weird things have been going on that have ensured that there hasn't been one yet. So I think your perspective is strange. The situation is absolutely crazy, and has been for years, but that doesn't make it not crazy.
> This means that investors are pricing companies as if though interests rates can be lowered. I don't think they can, because inflation in the US already quite high despite the 4.5% interest rates and with these tariffs upon that, it probably can't be lowered.
This is why Trump is replacing people doing the statistics with people who very publicly say that they will print what Trump wants. He really wants to cut rates, and I think he will eventually get his way.
If employment is down though, then that would be justification for lowering the interest rates. I think it's more a matter of maintaining appearances than something strategic to make the, by Trump desired, low interest rate economy possible.
Even though he wants lower rates, rather than saying 'the Fed is prioritizing price stability over employment and that's wrong-- we can't waste American lives, they need to have jobs' he's denying the numbers despite that they could in principle allow him to do something he wants.
Maybe other things are signs of knowing these problems, maybe this demand for investments from Japan and the EU are motivated by concerns that stock market and to some degree commercial housing valuations are unreasonable, but it's not certain that Trump or anybody else is fully aware. This isn't complicated stuff, and I've even seen newspapers detail ideas like this, maybe toned down a bit, but it's hard to know who understands what.
From 2004 to 2009, the inflation rate was less than 4% each year. Gold was $443 an ounce in March 2005 and $975 an ounce in March 2008. Yes rich people had to put their money somewhere as banks and then corporate America started to collapse during the surprise crisis, they took them out of equities for banks offering subprime mortgages and put them into assets like precious metals and the like.
Also in 1999 MSFT was $57 a share. In 2009 it was $16 a share. It cracked $57 again in 2016. 17 years to go sideways.
Cisco never reached its 2000 peak again. Of course companies like Pets.com just went out of business.
I really want to believe this, but I have a hard time seeing this applying to the ultra-wealthy nowadays. There are far too many strategies to hold on to your wealth or to get it back.
Aside from lottery winners whose assets start liquid, are there examples of people in the last 5 years with over $100 million in assets that permanently lost most of their wealth without doing something really stupid?
By what mechanism / who exactly? Or referring explicitly to the ultra wealthy? When I think of the normal wealthy, the 1-20 million camp, can't they just stuff all of their money into index funds for the last 20 years and everyone grows 10%+ a year (most years)? That's what the few multi millionaires I personally know have done -> step 1 put money in e.g. Vanguard, step 2 maintain job and spend based on income, not accumulated wealth, step 3 do nothing as wealth builds itself. Once they get past 2 million, I think they are making 80-200k per year at capital gains rates and maybe don't even need to put more in, just ignore it. I don't personally have that situation though so maybe I'm glossing over details or have it wrong.
Earning $1mil and stuffing 100% of it into the stock market is a risky move.
You lay out basically the situation I found myself in. But I set aside some for a future house down payment (less risk for that chunk), future wedding (less risk for that chunk), and even ignoring that, most advice wouldn't say to stuff the remaining 100% into markets.
So maybe 60% went into markets. With hindsight it oftentimes sounds like a good idea to just drop it all in the market. But life is uncertain and crystal balls are in short supply... you would feel stupid if you made $1mil, put it all in stocks, and life came out of nowhere and took a dump all over you when the markets tanked.
Not saying I'm in a bad position, but its nowhere near "1mil at 10% per year (which is in itself kinda a wild base assumption)".
TLDR: people have a rosy unrealistic view of how this works out.
Most people earn money over time. Putting these savings 100% into the stock market as you earn them is pretty reasonable. It’s only a sudden cash windfall that presents problems.
The fix for that is to put money in 1, 2, and 3 year treasuries, and invest that money into equities as the treasuries mature.
As others have said, we did see effects, but a quick recovery of many of these events or the full scale of damage still isn't known and quantified. We definitely are in a bubble, but like you suggest, diversify. Don't stop investing, just be smart. Market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Time in the market also beats timing the market. And lastly, it sorta isn't surprising that things quickly recover. Tons of people's retirement accounts are injecting money into the stock market regardless of what is going on. We will likely never see long term significant drops just due to the fact that we've devised a system of a non-stop garuntee stream of money into it.
Kind of a weird post given that the pandemic did tank the stock market (-35%), interest rates and the war in Ukraine did tank the stock market (-28%), and the tariff announcement did tank the stock market (-21% and we have yet to see the full fallout).
I don't think putting all your net worth in S&P would be considered diversified.
With an MSCI world, those companies would drop to ~22% exposure. Throw a bit of real estate, more exposure to your home country if you are not in the US some real estate, some bonds and you can make it drop to <10%.
Those techniques rarely worked in the past as the broad stock market retreat usually affects stocks across the board. The best diversification is into uncorrelated asset classes. But there is some art in determining what's likely to remain uncorrelated. Bonds and gold are usually decent guesses.
They certainly solve the stated problem of concentration in a few tech companies. But I agree, non-tech companies are overvalued.
Bonds are terrifying, they’re a bet against inflation and in favor of the US dollar.
MLPs and oil companies are a nice place to stash money because they aren’t correlated with tech. MLPs flow about 7% tax free yield which isn’t bad.
Bitcoin and Gold are good hedges against inflation.
It’s not hard to predict that events will happen. It’s hard to do so with more precision than the next guy.
Something I learned in H2 of 2021, when I nearly went broke betting on a correction. Wasn’t wrong, one did occur. Just failed to realize I couldn’t figure out exactly when.
All of your examples did tank the stock market. At least in the meaning a 20+% drop over a time period in the order of months of less.
They are however not examples of long depressions. Which I think is reasonable to expect we'll see less of, given that more and more regular people feel the need to put their money in the stock market. There is simply no alternative. And every time we reach new heights. This is also expected.
Will this go on forever? Probably not. But it won't look like the 1930s. The stock market is a crowd, not a science.
Therefore the dips were an aberration - they should not have happened. Recovery is a sign that the previous dip was an incorrect prediction by the market.
No, the dips resulted in government interventions--like the Fed raising liquidity or Trump removing some tariffs--which then caused stocks to rally again.
You present these as straw man exaggerations, but they were real things that happened.
> The global pandemic will tank the stock market
It actually did screw up the economies of a lot of countries and companies and it messed with stock markets as well. It increased debt worldwide, it increased unemployment that took years to recover.
> High interest rates will tank the stock market
There is a well established relationship between lower stock market returns when there is high interest rates.
> War in Ukraine will tank the stock market
It significantly hurt the Russian stock market, at least the sanctions did. But war tends to be a stimulus for the economy as long as it isn't too large of a war.
There was an article I saw this morning saying only the very top of the S&P 500 are the stocks showing substantive growth in recent years, companies below that have been relatively slow to show growth. Additionally, since the pandemic and Ukraine war started global cost of goods have been rapidly increasing, much faster than they should be. Now with AI, the market in the US is losing a lot of jobs - both entry level and above. The latest US job numbers were so terrible Trump fired someone to try and cover it up.
I'm not sure what else needs to happen to show the economy has been doing poorly for all but the richest segments. The return of a blatant and severe caste system and mass starvation?
The primary harm of a bubble is *not* a crash in equity values, it is the misallocation of capital. The worst outcome would be for the misallocation to continue due to the intervention of asset owners with the most to lose who are also in control of the state.
All of the events you listed have had significant economic effects and required massive intervention from the state to buoy asset prices. The longer this continues the more our economy becomes geared to producing "value" for this small, and shrinking, group of owners at the expense of everyone else.
I think there's an incorrect valuation by looking at where things are today. I mean Black Monday, the 2009 housing crash, DotCom Bubble, and others were times the market did tank yet we've since recovered.
So how are we measuring the accuracy of those predictions? From Jan to April the Trump admin was announcing tariffs. VOO's (S&P500) lowest price this year was on April 8th at $456.74 and on Feb 19th it was $563.67. We see similar patterns with covid and invasion of Ukraine. Do we consider a 25% reduction "tanking"?
I agree that with enough time that everything will work itself out. But I do not think that this means we should ignore or downplay damage done in the short term.
- The pandemic did in fact tank the market
- Wars never tank the market and they jack up the military industry so no one would have said that
- High interest rates did tank the market once last year already and in the past because it provides for risk free gains
- Tariffs did tank the market so Trump played the reversal games
- Will AI tank the market? It will if it creates unemployment.
Diversifying does not stop the tanking. It will reduce the risk related to poor choices all at once
To be fair, there's a subtle but important difference to:
- we're going into the next Great Depression (a once in a lifetime occurrence)
- a small subset of stocks (that happens to make up a huge portion of the entire equity market in the US) has extreme PE and PEG ratios and will pop (which happens every few years)
I think your point largely stands for both cases, but it's important to delineate them.
If you're preparing for a Great Depression - you're likely only going to be right by coincidence. If you're preparing for a stock bubble to pop, at the very least, you've got better odds.
The New Yorker also has a vested interest in making people freak out about AI. If anyone with a prompt can churn out something that passes as a New Yorker essay, the monopoly on tone, cadence, and authority starts to crumble.
It is not a opinion article about the current admin. It is the direct statement from the state department on a topic that doesn’t belong less here than many other general interest topics found on hacker news. A few post below, there is a petition against pesticides in France.
UNESCO stands for international cooperation in education, science, culture, and communication. That seems well within what HN can cover in my opinion.
People also like to eat McDonalds and drink hyper-sugary soda, that doesn't mean those are good for you and should be served at every venue (yes, I know Trump likes McDonalds, please don't bring it up here if you can). There should be places where people at least try to do better. Usually HN tries to be that place. Unfortunately, in topics like this one it is not raising up to the mission. A long discussion of "why people that disagree with me are so stupid and evil" is not why I come to HN. There's enough places where you can get that and then some.
Then they would be lost. Comments are for understanding how something works. TODOs are for understanding how something might not work.
Edit: And if you put them in a tracker, they'd be distracting and confusing for team members less intimately familiar with the codebase, e.g. a PO. You could also choose a word other than "TODO", as long as it won't produce a ton of false positives in a search.
If you put them in a tracker, soon enough there will be somebody asking why 90% of the issues are not being worked on, will complain if they just disappear one day, and will disappear for political reasons.
It does stop kids from being openly advertised drugs and makes it difficult for kids to get drugs. That is the whole point of legislation, not to eliminate but mitigate.
I can assure you the average teenager in a western country has absolutely zero issues getting their weed. In fact, the older you get, the harder it becomes (as your social circle tends to shrink once you have a job).
In theory yes, in practice no. It's smarter to legalise it, it cuts off income source for criminals, creates taxable income that can be actually used to fund help centers etc.
That's very easy - go to area of train station, or some nearby park, and look for immigrant-looking people just standing around, trying to keep eye contact with passers or saying quietly "bonjour".
95% of the time you will get exactly what you want, otherwise it would be some form of "desolee". This is obvious, everybody knows and sees it, en masse (as in you are choosing from tens of such people in given area).
The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're funelling large streams of money into pockets of criminals. You're also not solving anything, in practice people keep buying it - without actual minor controls (unlike ie. alcohol or tobacco) and with blurred perception (ie. same dude probably deals weed, cocaine, heroine, whatever). It is shifting market to black side with all negative consequences that come with it. It creates this disgusting alternative, unofficial layers in cities where law enforcement long ago gave up on enforcing this ban and ordinary people learn/know to stay the fuck out and ignore.
> If you want people addicted to less things, design society where everyday life is less boring
I think society has never been so entertaining. I feel like we should instead learn to embrace the boredom. Life is supposed to be boring most of the time. It is healthy.
