Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 25 2025 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: yeah but what's the point with net worth if it's tied to something you're not going to sell? Again - if housing is an investment, sure, but I wager most people aren't going to sell their house without buying a new house, and I think most people want a better house, not a worse one, and on average, you can assume that the better house increases more than the worse one.
For me, now, if all houses in trondheim were to drop 50% in value, that would make me a lot closer to realizing my dream home, and I am a home owner.
You can also tap equity in a home without selling it, and you can even make money doing that and flipping the HELOC into other investments if they outpace the loan’s interest rate. That’s a sophisticated game with thin or nonexistent margins, so not recommended for anyone retail really, but it does illustrate the point that increases in home value have utility.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
On June 25 2025 21:45 LightSpectra wrote: It's also bad faith garbage, since Republicans were saying GDP doesn't matter when it was surging under Biden, or when it crashed under Trump's pandemic mismanagement. Their argument is "it only matters when it's bad for Democrats", essentially.
There is also that.
GDP doesn’t especially move the needle unless it’s tethered in very real ways to people’s actual lives. Brexit (today’s obligatory mention) blew hundreds of billions off it. People didn’t care because they valued other things.
But pick a lane on it. Whatever issues Mamdani is tapping into and that resonate, presumably resonate because of personal experiences, or are informed by media consumed.
I mean by all means disagree on the proposed solutions to those gripes, just not on the ‘what about the GDP?’ basis.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
whether its denial, delusion or just mental gymnastics im not sure, but this is impressive. the headline of the article is "why is europe better than the usa - a comparative analysis of quality of life and culture". the headline matters because thats the literal point of the article. the body and closing statements of the article fail to answer the question in the headline. the author's final words are basically that both europe and the usa have their pros and cons, and it depends on the individual which they would prefer. the author not only didnt prove why europe was better, but couldnt prove the counter argument that the usa was better. thats being inconclusive. the original question was left unanswered.
and if you still want to die in a ditch that the article was conclusive, then fine. it doesnt change the fact that the article doesnt support your argument at all because it never makes the claim that europe is indeed superior to the usa in quality of life. its quite obvious you cited that article based off its headline alone.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
whether its denial, delusion or just mental gymnastics im not sure, but this is impressive. the headline of the article is "why is europe better than the usa - a comparative analysis of quality of life and culture". the headline matters because thats the literal point of the article. the body and closing statements of the article fail to answer the question in the headline. the author's final words are basically that both europe and the usa have their pros and cons, and it depends on the individual which they would prefer. the author not only didnt prove why europe was better, but couldnt prove the counter argument that the usa was better. thats being inconclusive. the original question was left unanswered.
and if you still want to die in a ditch that the article was conclusive, then fine. it doesnt change the fact that the article doesnt support your argument at all because it never makes the claim that europe is indeed superior to the usa in quality of life. its quite obvious you cited that article based off its headline alone.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
whether its denial, delusion or just mental gymnastics im not sure, but this is impressive. the headline of the article is "why is europe better than the usa - a comparative analysis of quality of life and culture". the headline matters because thats the literal point of the article. the body and closing statements of the article fail to answer the question in the headline. the author's final words are basically that both europe and the usa have their pros and cons, and it depends on the individual which they would prefer. the author not only didnt prove why europe was better, but couldnt prove the counter argument that the usa was better. thats being inconclusive. the original question was left unanswered.
and if you still want to die in a ditch that the article was conclusive, then fine. it doesnt change the fact that the article doesnt support your argument at all because it never makes the claim that europe is indeed superior to the usa in quality of life. its quite obvious you cited that article based off its headline alone.
Suit yourself. Not responding to nonsense.
per google
inconclusive /ˌɪnkənˈkluːsɪv/ adjective not leading to a firm conclusion or result; not ending doubt or dispute.
next time instead of doubling down on a stupid take just admit youre wrong lol.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
whether its denial, delusion or just mental gymnastics im not sure, but this is impressive. the headline of the article is "why is europe better than the usa - a comparative analysis of quality of life and culture". the headline matters because thats the literal point of the article. the body and closing statements of the article fail to answer the question in the headline. the author's final words are basically that both europe and the usa have their pros and cons, and it depends on the individual which they would prefer. the author not only didnt prove why europe was better, but couldnt prove the counter argument that the usa was better. thats being inconclusive. the original question was left unanswered.
and if you still want to die in a ditch that the article was conclusive, then fine. it doesnt change the fact that the article doesnt support your argument at all because it never makes the claim that europe is indeed superior to the usa in quality of life. its quite obvious you cited that article based off its headline alone.
Suit yourself. Not responding to nonsense.
per google
inconclusive /ˌɪnkənˈkluːsɪv/ adjective not leading to a firm conclusion or result; not ending doubt or dispute.
next time instead of doubling down on a stupid take just admit youre wrong lol.
I think media orgs are really overhyping the NYC mayor race. Adams is gonna flop hard. NYC mayor will be Zohran Mamdani and it will be a really interesting experiment to see how it goes. He has an opportunity to learn from Deblasio and others.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
whether its denial, delusion or just mental gymnastics im not sure, but this is impressive. the headline of the article is "why is europe better than the usa - a comparative analysis of quality of life and culture". the headline matters because thats the literal point of the article. the body and closing statements of the article fail to answer the question in the headline. the author's final words are basically that both europe and the usa have their pros and cons, and it depends on the individual which they would prefer. the author not only didnt prove why europe was better, but couldnt prove the counter argument that the usa was better. thats being inconclusive. the original question was left unanswered.
and if you still want to die in a ditch that the article was conclusive, then fine. it doesnt change the fact that the article doesnt support your argument at all because it never makes the claim that europe is indeed superior to the usa in quality of life. its quite obvious you cited that article based off its headline alone.
Suit yourself. Not responding to nonsense.
per google
inconclusive /ˌɪnkənˈkluːsɪv/ adjective not leading to a firm conclusion or result; not ending doubt or dispute.
next time instead of doubling down on a stupid take just admit youre wrong lol.
This is a recurrent theme for MP where he comes up with his own definitions of words and insists that he is using the words correctly and it is everyone else that has it wrong.
But to return to the origin of the discussion - I never said GDP was some perfect all-encompassing measure that shows exactly how well the average middle class person is doing. The ridiculous claim MP offered was that GDP is a dogshit measurement that is nothing more than a dick measuring contest for the rich. A claim someone could only make if they failed econ 101.
This is the element on the left where no idea is too foundational to be overruled by their enlightenment. Having testes or ovaries has nothing to do with whether you are male or female. Your body weight has nothing to do with your health and even morbidly obese can be "healthy at any weight" and if you think otherwise you're fatphobic. We actually don't need a police force or prisons for that matter. A declining GDP can be a good thing. Going through a male puberty doesn't give you an advantage in sports.
There's no idea too crazy that people won't buy into and this includes extremely well-educated people. Our President thinks we can end wars by shouting for peace on twitter and our top health guy doesn't believe in germ theory... but certain people on the left still manage to appear as insane as these actually insane people.
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote: GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
No, inconclusive means something else entirely. There are very clear conclusions. It's just up to you to choose whether you prefer one place over the other. For example if you prefer to get shot rather than not getting shot, then you should go to the US and not to the EU. That isn't inconclusive, it's simply a choice you can make based on an observable fact.
Based on the observable facts, if you prefer a chill life, you go to the EU and not to the US. Again, nothing inconclusive about that.
whether its denial, delusion or just mental gymnastics im not sure, but this is impressive. the headline of the article is "why is europe better than the usa - a comparative analysis of quality of life and culture". the headline matters because thats the literal point of the article. the body and closing statements of the article fail to answer the question in the headline. the author's final words are basically that both europe and the usa have their pros and cons, and it depends on the individual which they would prefer. the author not only didnt prove why europe was better, but couldnt prove the counter argument that the usa was better. thats being inconclusive. the original question was left unanswered.
and if you still want to die in a ditch that the article was conclusive, then fine. it doesnt change the fact that the article doesnt support your argument at all because it never makes the claim that europe is indeed superior to the usa in quality of life. its quite obvious you cited that article based off its headline alone.
Suit yourself. Not responding to nonsense.
per google
inconclusive /ˌɪnkənˈkluːsɪv/ adjective not leading to a firm conclusion or result; not ending doubt or dispute.
next time instead of doubling down on a stupid take just admit youre wrong lol.
This is a recurrent theme for MP where he comes up with his own definitions of words and insists that he is using the words correctly and it is everyone else that has it wrong.
But to return to the origin of the discussion - I never said GDP was some perfect all-encompassing measure that shows exactly how well the average middle class person is doing. The ridiculous claim MP offered was that GDP is a dogshit measurement that is nothing more than a dick measuring contest for the rich. A claim someone could only make if they failed econ 101.
This is the element on the left where no idea is too foundational to be overruled by their enlightenment. Having testes or ovaries has nothing to do with whether you are male or female. Your body weight has nothing to do with your health and even morbidly obese can be "healthy at any weight" and if you think otherwise you're fatphobic. We actually don't need a police force or prisons for that matter. A declining GDP can be a good thing. Going through a male puberty doesn't give you an advantage in sports.
There's no idea too crazy that people won't buy into and this includes extremely well-educated people. Our President thinks we can end wars by shouting for peace on twitter and our top health guy doesn't believe in germ theory... but certain people on the left still manage to appear as insane as these actually insane people.
GDP per capita is a much better measurement than GDP. Median income is even better in my eyes but it can be argued that it isn't. If possible to track median disposable income after taxes, insurance, housing etc is paid that would probably be the best in my highly biased opinion of measurements focused on economy.
For the average person a higher GDP means there is more money flowing and thus on average better outcomes.
Splitting it per capita kind of eliminates population fluctuations such as Canada that has increasing GDP but decreasing per capita.
Median income starts going down to the normal people.
Disposable tries to track if people are "rich" in a capitalist setting, regardless of what their income/costs happens to be. Especially if you track the %, which would be an indicator of how rich a person feels in their setting.
Another interesting metric would be how many monthly spending's are available in savings. A society with less than 1 month on average is not going to handle catastrophes well, on individual or society level.
If you go outside economy then things such as average life length, happiness and similar metrics becomes valuable.
As far as I know the advantage of GDP is that is somewhat easy to track and compare it, it also indicates the outcome of a lot of other interesting metrics but there isn't great correlation.
It's very easy to find counter arguments to the usefulness of GDP. Very, very easy. It strictly cannot measure quality of life. It doesn't even necessarily correlate to quality of life.
But since the Great Recession, economists have increasingly questioned whether it is the best way to measure an economy’s health, and whether it disregards key factors that affect people’s well-being.
Recently, some global economic leaders have suggested countries should not put so much focus on GDP.
Even Simon Kuznets, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who helped develop the idea of GDP, said it should not be used as a measure for “the welfare of a nation.”
How much consumable stuff people produce leaves out a lot of important factors that contribute to well-being, such as a clean environment and good health.
An oil spill can increase GDP, for example, because it costs money to clean up, but that also contributes negatively to the environment.
GDP also does not take into account unpaid work like housework and child care, which is largely carried out by women.
“Time that you spend taking care of your kids is very valuable time, but it doesn’t get factored into GDP,” said Nancy Folbre, a professor emerita of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
“Time that you spend taking care of your kids is very valuable time, but it doesn’t get factored into GDP,” said Nancy Folbre, a professor emerita of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Some countries are starting to develop alternative ways to account for the value of unpaid work, which Folbre says constitutes about half of the time individuals spend working on average. But until that is regularly factored into GDP, the measurement will only be providing part of the entire economic picture.
Gdp is useless though in measuring how the middle class is doing. It has long been a neo liberal talking point that the economy is number go up and that as long number does go up, we the cogs of the system can be happy. My company has in the last 3 years dropped in share value from around 80 to 2.8 € today. My company must be bankrupt, facing financial trouble at least. Naa. We are providing more and more services to more and more customers. If we'd go down, the German financial market would crash so hard, you have no idea. It's just that stock value is fake. If stock value is fake, then stock trading is fake. If stock trading is fake, the whole financial industry is fake. And if that's the case, then maybe a financial system that is build upon number, be it gdp or dividend or stock market go up, is fake too.
And if that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, a higher gdp means jack shit to how the individual person in it is doing.
Certainly, if we suddenly see a drop in gdppp without anything else, it might be a clear sign of a recession that now the individual has to carry the weight of, but number goes up is certainly not an indicator that anyone but some very few are doing better.
Isn't a stock price an indicator of how valuable that stock is. Not how valuable that company is?
Basically, how much will the company grow and what dividends are they paying out.
An extreme example would be a company that is entrenched in its market area with no real expansion opportunities and paying 0 dividends while 99% of voting stock is held outside the market. That company generates no value to people owning the stock, so value would be close to 0 regardless of company profit/loss.
On June 26 2025 03:57 Yurie wrote: Isn't a stock price an indicator of how valuable that stock is. Not how valuable that company is?
Basically, how much will the company grow and what dividends are they paying out.
An extreme example would be a company that is entrenched in its market area with no real expansion opportunities and paying 0 dividends while 99% of voting stock is held outside the market. That company generates no value to people owning the stock, so value would be close to 0 regardless of company profit/loss.
The company is the stock. The stock is ownership of the company. The problem with his comparison is that to derive the value of a pie from the value of a slice of the pie you need to know how many slices there are.
On June 26 2025 03:29 BlackJack wrote: This is the element on the left where no idea is too foundational to be overruled by their enlightenment. Having testes or ovaries has nothing to do with whether you are male or female. Your body weight has nothing to do with your health and even morbidly obese can be "healthy at any weight" and if you think otherwise you're fatphobic. We actually don't need a police force or prisons for that matter. A declining GDP can be a good thing. Going through a male puberty doesn't give you an advantage in sports.
Can you name any mainstream leftists that have actually said any of these things, or are you just going by some Tumblr post with 20 'Likes' as proof that all of the left unanimously agrees?
Because the leftist position on these is: your biological sex (which itself is nebulous, imprecise, and not a hard binary, but whatever) is not the same thing as your gender; fatphobia is a bad thing because it doesn't actually stop people from being overweight, not because it's actually healthy; and we need some kind of civil protection but current police forces are wildly corrupt and prisons are extremely inhumane.
As for "a declining GDP can be a good thing," look no further than Republicans tripping over themselves to say this in defense of Trump's tariffs.
On June 26 2025 03:57 Yurie wrote: Isn't a stock price an indicator of how valuable that stock is. Not how valuable that company is?
Basically, how much will the company grow and what dividends are they paying out.
An extreme example would be a company that is entrenched in its market area with no real expansion opportunities and paying 0 dividends while 99% of voting stock is held outside the market. That company generates no value to people owning the stock, so value would be close to 0 regardless of company profit/loss.
A stock price is an indicator for what people are willing to pay for that stock. That doesn't have to be linked to anything in reality. Take Tesla for example. Its stock price was basically completely decoupled from any real values, and only based on Musk hype for a long time.
Or (not a stock, but a similar principle) bitcoin. Does nothing useful, no fundamental values behind it, still people are willing to pay lots of money for it. Which makes it reasonable for other people to buy it just because they hope that the first group will give them even more money for it in the future.
The idea that stock priced are linked to any real value of the company is born out of the idea that all of the people who trade stocks are rational actors who act based on clear information. But, as it turns out, that is not actually how a lot of humans work. And if enough irrational actors are involved in the trade of some stock, its price can completely decouple from the company.
And even worse, rational actors might also get involved because they think they can predict the behaviour of the irrational actors and make money from that. So now we have a stock price based on what irrational actors think based on bad information, and on what rational actors think irrational actors will think. And none of them base their value estimate on any real world information about the company, it is all based on vibes.
That is not what happens with every stock, but it is a thing that can happen to stocks, and it should make you very cautious about assuming that the stock price of a company must be linked to its actual value or what it does.
Speaking of stocks, what do you guys think about Palantir, what Peter Thiel's connection to the government allows it to do, what's the reaction to US Army enlisting their CTO (and a few other C level executives) and how does this relationship with the government affect the valuation?
For me, personally it feels incredibly insidious and scary, if you know anything about Peter Theil, what he stands for and what he believes making him one of the most influential, rich (he was previously but this is next level) and powerful people in the world is very worrying.
I mean, you could argue that the stock market created Elon Musk, you could also argue that without Musk, his influence over Twitter and his financial and personal involvement in getting Trump elected that wouldn't happen, and he started off as much less radical then Thiel.
On June 26 2025 03:57 Yurie wrote: Isn't a stock price an indicator of how valuable that stock is. Not how valuable that company is?
Basically, how much will the company grow and what dividends are they paying out.
An extreme example would be a company that is entrenched in its market area with no real expansion opportunities and paying 0 dividends while 99% of voting stock is held outside the market. That company generates no value to people owning the stock, so value would be close to 0 regardless of company profit/loss.
A stock price is an indicator for what people are willing to pay for that stock. That doesn't have to be linked to anything in reality. Take Tesla for example. Its stock price was basically completely decoupled from any real values, and only based on Musk hype for a long time.
Or (not a stock, but a similar principle) bitcoin. Does nothing useful, no fundamental values behind it, still people are willing to pay lots of money for it. Which makes it reasonable for other people to buy it just because they hope that the first group will give them even more money for it in the future.
The idea that stock priced are linked to any real value of the company is born out of the idea that all of the people who trade stocks are rational actors who act based on clear information. But, as it turns out, that is not actually how a lot of humans work. And if enough irrational actors are involved in the trade of some stock, its price can completely decouple from the company.
And even worse, rational actors might also get involved because they think they can predict the behaviour of the irrational actors and make money from that. So now we have a stock price based on what irrational actors think based on bad information, and on what rational actors think irrational actors will think. And none of them base their value estimate on any real world information about the company, it is all based on vibes.
That is not what happens with every stock, but it is a thing that can happen to stocks, and it should make you very cautious about assuming that the stock price of a company must be linked to its actual value or what it does.
Great explanation!
There's a well-known example from a few years ago with GameStop. It got... a little bit out of hand.
The tl;dr version is that short squeezers were faced with a huge potential loss due to a sudden influx of new buyers - meaning the squeezers literally couldn't sell their shares, putting them in a death spiral (the clock was ticking). So to avoid further losses they used their connections to halt new purchases (probably illegal? I'm not sure). It turned into a tug-of-war of sorts.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/3b3458c8f216eca0e6c3741a1b5314ad.jpg)
