ThetaGangThroweway

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1zwz2a wrote

It doesn't bother you that VC and crowdfunding have identical payoffs? I say it's more evidence of the efficient market hypothesis, but for the post's purposes it shows how the system as it is set up incentivizes rockstar CEOs. Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs were among the first, and Mr. Musk is simply the most recent. But you'll notice all the above keep announcing new R&D projects that require funding regardless if their team has finished the old one. The big bucks are in starting massive projects, not finishing them. Once they are finished their profits can be easily valued with conventional math and the stock price (and executive options/shares) will crash. Furthermore, micro-industries surrounding them will crash. Like Amazon Aggregators that simply buy a portfolio of profitable online stores with VC and borrowed money... Turns out the returns of those were identical to leveraged exposure to Amazon.

You don't need a mastermind creating growth. People will figure that part out even if you don't want them to. I argue no one should try to manipulate markets in any fashion, even if it is done with the best intentions.

1

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1xdjqn wrote

Not necessarily as it depends how many buck sales they can do and how long they take to do it. And you know they usually hold until maturity, right?

At the moment, the Fed's focus is bringing the real inflation rate down to the target. In his announcements, Mr Powell cited the consumer price index MINUS materials affected by the war in Europe.

2

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1wpjpg wrote

Same end result. For solar especially, EVERY STAGE of the process has a tax write off up to 30% of the value of panel. Makers, installers, and buyers alike. The profitability of solar went up accordingly the moment these tax breaks went into effect. It's not unreasonable to believe panel cost would rise by 50% if these subsidies were removed.

And BTW, tax breaks on job producing infrastructure is exactly what ecoterrorists are referring to when they lie and say oil giants are heavily subsidized. Not saying you're one of those guys, but you definitely can't have it both ways.

2

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1vsdyh wrote

Don't get me started on the fall of Rome, I could literally go on all day. Suffice it to say that was a symptom, not the cause, and their fiat currency kept prices stable even as the gold content fell. By the time Rome started losing territory, the population size across the empire had already fallen massively and the legions had been cannibalized in a list of ways long before then.

And regardless, that's not the proof you're looking for as deliberate inflation acts like a hidden tax on savings and we're not looking to increase spending, but rather change the manner in which we raise revenue. I.E. We can reduce inflation and raise income taxes for higher brackets, as long as net revenue is the same... Who cares?

1

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1vp0ac wrote

I literally am a historian. And the late Roman Empire's pursuit of fiat currency was actually a success and I have written my own arguments for both their rise and fall which are pretty unique. The point here is an inflation target of zero isn't too much to ask for as we do run a developed and profitable country here. We target net positive inflation to deter hoarding rather than because we need the money (we have taxes for that).

6

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1vmm8q wrote

The government has a money printer and has been deficit spending for its entire existence. What we should worry about is countries with economies highly correlated to the US, but whose government bank's are working at cross purposes to ours. This is America, it's not hard to turn a profit as parts of the country are still receiving new settlers. And the Fed is full of men smarter and more responsible than you and me.

And as several pointed out, current rates aren't very high in absolute terms.

1

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1vl28j wrote

There are micro-bubbles all the time that depend on ease of equity and cheapness of debt. Ever heard of Amazon Aggregators?

I forget the exact study, but investments with lottery like payoffs tend to be systemically overvalued whether it's micro-cap stocks, short-term options, or innovative startups. People feel better about a chance of extremely high returns than they do about giving that chance up. Until this year, any new business could be given a lottery like payoff (or even be turned into a ponzi scheme).

1

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j1vjkys wrote

Yes, but we can do it consistently. In fact, every new marketable invention has produced some kind of bubble in recent decades. There are even single-stock bubbles, and bubbles that form around successful companies. Like how right now college athletes found they can make more on OnlyFans than they ever will make in the real world. That isn't just sad, but will definitely right itself as soon as all the small-scale porn shows move onto the platform and squeeze the true amateurs out (fortunately).

2