The behavior of markets in the modern period, roughly since the 1920s has been remarkably consistent. But consistency is not the only thing and is not something you can count on. Value is. The whole premise of this “critique” is based on notion that risk is unattributable both in terms of particular assets or economic conditions. Which is nonsense.
1. If an enterprise is successful and building and selling products and has good management, it’s a good investment (equities, bonds) and you can check every quarter.
2. If a commodity (steel, oil, lithium, etc.) is in demand because it has a use that is stable to increasing, you can verify that it deserves the value given to it.
3. If you have an economy that is well-run and has stable and reasonably transparent institutions, you can invest in its currency.
4. If you own a piece of real estate in an area which is stable economically and/or will become desirable and you stay in it long enough, you can be assured of a decent return on your investment.
5. And, when you invest in any of these, as with ANY investment: past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. If you regularly observe verify 1 - 4, don’t worry.
And the funny bit is the whole generational (“Ok, boomer”) idiom is used to justify ignoring this. I have to hope that the next car they get, they don’t just rely on the best advertisement or are ignorant of crash, fuel, resale value statistics, etc.
It’s like the post-Boomer generation (or such folks as appear mostly in crypto or Reddit/Robin Hood promotions) is built on laziness: I was told X and when I didn’t learn anything about X it’s not my fault it’s the guy who told me X.
I really hope it is just the intellectually lazy or scamming part of all post-Boomer generations that fall for this.
And then there is this jewel:
“Usually, financial ruin comes from safe assets, not risky ones.
When you feel a sense of complacency or security, only to have it ripped away through circumstances beyond your control. When everything seems like it can’t fail, and then it does.”
You have to have a whole new definition of up and down or a weak command of the English language to say this about “safe” and “risky” assets. But this definitely serves the purpose of deflecting the critiques of crypto or Bernie Madoff’s investments. And this comes right out of the FUD playbook which, of course, appeals most to the ignorant and/or lazy.
It’s fine if the (lazy/ignorant) rich or purely lucky get suckered by this silliness. It starts to be genuinely scary and awful when regular folks start getting suckered.
I get your thoughts for sure. BTC fixes so much, maybe not as much (or more) than a house did when it came about, but right now, it's the biggest improvement we have.
The world ain't ready yet. BTC rules!
The behavior of markets in the modern period, roughly since the 1920s has been remarkably consistent. But consistency is not the only thing and is not something you can count on. Value is. The whole premise of this “critique” is based on notion that risk is unattributable both in terms of particular assets or economic conditions. Which is nonsense.
1. If an enterprise is successful and building and selling products and has good management, it’s a good investment (equities, bonds) and you can check every quarter.
2. If a commodity (steel, oil, lithium, etc.) is in demand because it has a use that is stable to increasing, you can verify that it deserves the value given to it.
3. If you have an economy that is well-run and has stable and reasonably transparent institutions, you can invest in its currency.
4. If you own a piece of real estate in an area which is stable economically and/or will become desirable and you stay in it long enough, you can be assured of a decent return on your investment.
5. And, when you invest in any of these, as with ANY investment: past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. If you regularly observe verify 1 - 4, don’t worry.
And the funny bit is the whole generational (“Ok, boomer”) idiom is used to justify ignoring this. I have to hope that the next car they get, they don’t just rely on the best advertisement or are ignorant of crash, fuel, resale value statistics, etc.
It’s like the post-Boomer generation (or such folks as appear mostly in crypto or Reddit/Robin Hood promotions) is built on laziness: I was told X and when I didn’t learn anything about X it’s not my fault it’s the guy who told me X.
I really hope it is just the intellectually lazy or scamming part of all post-Boomer generations that fall for this.
And then there is this jewel:
“Usually, financial ruin comes from safe assets, not risky ones.
When you feel a sense of complacency or security, only to have it ripped away through circumstances beyond your control. When everything seems like it can’t fail, and then it does.”
You have to have a whole new definition of up and down or a weak command of the English language to say this about “safe” and “risky” assets. But this definitely serves the purpose of deflecting the critiques of crypto or Bernie Madoff’s investments. And this comes right out of the FUD playbook which, of course, appeals most to the ignorant and/or lazy.
It’s fine if the (lazy/ignorant) rich or purely lucky get suckered by this silliness. It starts to be genuinely scary and awful when regular folks start getting suckered.
I get your thoughts for sure. BTC fixes so much, maybe not as much (or more) than a house did when it came about, but right now, it's the biggest improvement we have.
You could say the same about Bitcoin, but I get your point.
Crypto gives us the opportunity of a lifetime, and some people are not ready to take it yet.