/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10423789
Because liquidity should be provided by the producers of the goods and services not by financial institutions that don't provide anything valuable to society.

>>10423789
I'll watch it.

>100 year economic cycle
Is this guy fucking retarded

>>10423874
He’s a real fucking pedo weirdo who runs his firm like a religious cult

These fucking Jew hedges need to be purged

>>10423874
not an argument

>>10423874
How many billions a year have you made in annualized returns for clients anon?

>>10423835
>should
Should but don't. Why does that preclude you watching it?

>>10423789
>video of financial pilpul
DOTR and a nose shearing coming soon, OP.

>>10424140
>>10423889
>>10423880
Jesus fucking Christ /pol/ needs to be taken out back and shot in the head. You fucking faggots ruin this board with your schizophrenic bullshit posts that contribute nothing whatsoever. You're like disgusting and pathetic subhuman vermin, just scuttle back to your containment board you filth.

>>10423789
I never understand the use for these videos. There is no need for him to share this information, so it is either false or manipulable information he can take advantage of to gain more wealth. I never have any idea why any ever makes these and only take them with a grain of salt.

>prove me wrong so I can enjoy life pls.

>>10424232
Debt is slavery. Sorry you're a cuck.

>>10424326
>There is no need for him to share this information,
Yes there is, in short it's content marketing and or gloating
Long form: It's because as other anons said, a few years back, his firm was being portrayed as being a creepy cult so this was the first in his attempt to do some PR damage control by applying the company's own ethos of "radical transparency" to the public.
What releasing this information does is give the firm credibility, in the same way marketing firms show case studies that show a (gussied up) description of the work process that lead them to having successful campaigns.
Also, never ever forget, EGO. When you think you're a genius, you want to tell other people, even if you're giving away the secret sauce. It's that classic trope from the Bond Films, the villain gloats over his evil plan which gives Bond the information he needs to blow up the base and bang the girl.

You really should use your cynicism to work FOR you, not AGAINST you an on.

>>10424365
How rich are you anon?

>>10424418
Smart post.

>>10424365
Yeah, cuck this cuck that. We get it. You fucking hicks on /pol/ have cocks inside your wife on the mind 24/7. Just fucking keep it to your trash board instead of posting your useless bullshit here.

>>10424232
black or jewish your surely an african either way. liberia is your home or maybe egypt, but you dont belong in the white west, if you are a faggit cuck white person from sanfran or some other urban hell hole kys

>>10424447
get your reddit ass back to facebook faggot

>>10424427
richer than you goy. How much debt do you have?
>>10424447
Imao cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck

>>10424365
Im not denying that we live in a consumerist debt based userist economy, we do. Im saying watch this video so you can understand how it works and profit from it.

The problem with /pol/, and the reason why i left, is that you guys arent interested in actually improving your lives in any way, just bitching about reality. the only difference between reddit and /pol/ is reddit evades reality and deludes themselves in order to cope, whereas /pol/ confronts reality but also uses it as an excuse to never do anything.

>>10424365
This, and all the arrows point to to so called chosen ones. I won't be silenced and won't gobacktopol.

>>10424427
Less rich than he would be if usury did not exist.

>>10424365
You are literally retarded if you think debt always is “slavery”/bad. Leveraging your investments can make a lot of sense for both business and individuals. You should unironically read a basic finance book if you don’t understand why.

>>10423789
>raise income by printing money

Until people realize those colored papers aren't worth shit

>>10424448
>better insult everyone because I'm insecure on the internet (just in case)

>>10424472
>How much debt do you have?
None.
But how rich are you? Should I trust anything you say based on your empirically proven ability to accumulate wealth?

>>10424475
Kinda getting into a pointless debate here, because without the potential to profit from loaning money there is no incentive to do so, which means that if you want to start a company there is no access to capital to do it, which means status quo power-structures and business incumbents prevail since it's very difficult to disrupt them. It also keeps more people in wagecuckery since they can't take a loan to start their own business etc. etc..
So really, he might be worse off, he might be better off - it's all academic.

>>10424365
this

>>10424365
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.

>>10424473
this holy shit. thinking about it now pol is literally right wing reddit

>>10424488
>inb4 I'm a millenial and I don't know what living within my means is. It makes sense to borrow money against my future prosperity, so that I can buy a cuckshed and pay mr. sheckleberg his 5% apr interest. I love onions and israel.
>>10424473
We already know how to improve our lives. Buy bitcoin and overthrow the central banks. The ideal Austrian Economy is almost here.

>>10424051
What argument do you want? What legitimacy could that idea possibly have? You think the world economy now isthe same as 200 or 300 years ago? A thing is only a cycle if it happens more than once

>>10424365
>what is debt that shouldn't be paid
okay tard: if you're student loan is 4% APR but your gainz could be >10% then you still make 6% growth—some poeple's student loans are even lower, like 2%. I made it so easy a child could understand. Say thank you to your superiors.

>>10424663
your*
You fucking faggot

1) You shouldn't be wasting your money on going to government indoctrination camp. Especially if you aren't using your own money. Since you most likely got a government loan, you are stealing wealth from the taxpayers in order to invest into a nonexistent asset, your brain you fucking brainlet

2) How is your liberal arts psychology gender studies degree going to make you any money? Are you going to try and transfer your degree to someone else and make a profit? Oh wait you can't, which is why you also can't default on your students loans, and will forever be a debt slave to the government, the lender of the loan.

>>10424448
>>10424463
>>10424472

Honestly how did you little guys even find your way off of /r/thedonald?

>>10424772
Bitcoin. We're going to use it to overthrow your inflationary ponzi-scheme, joke of a monetary system.

>>10424803
You're literally schizophrenic.

>>10424815
Lol
>imao we should have long term and short term debt cycles controlled by a central entity that arbitrarily manipulates interest rates and the currency supply because imao the freemarket doesn't work
>I'm the schizophrenic
keep trying cuck. Your system will collapse, and we will return to a system that objectively measures wealth and keeps credit and spending in check. Get ready for the bitcoin standard.

>>10424848
>and we will return
I thought you don't believe in cycles?

>>10424892
They exist, but they only exist because of central banking. If we had an objective currency, such as bitcoin i.e. a currency that is a store of value due to scarcity, we would not have the extreme cycles we have now.

>>10424757
I didn't proofread, my bad; also—last time I checked—this wasn't some kind of college level forum. You're right there's a healthy amount of indoctrination in college and uni. I didn't like college. I might go back, or I might not. I make fine money doing what I'm working on now. If I went back to college it would be for the sole purpose of having a piece of paper to say I completed a BS (STEM), MBA or Pharm D. A college education means very little in a real work environment unless you're academia. The student loan remains maybe a poor example and was intended to be generalized to any situation where an individual might gain more from investing versus paying their debt. This is literally how governments work and they all work damn fine: seeing as they generally own billions of people. Finally, WHEW LAD THAT'S SOME MIGHTY FINE BAIT YOU GOT THERE: I said nothing about degrees or college experience generally accepted as useless. See pic related. PS: I'm not going to proofread this either so go ahead and bitch about how YOUR A FAGGOT

>>10424546
>|
>|>
>|
>|3

>>10424914
Fair enough. But also, and not to put the words into your mouth, but isn't the basic underpinning of Free Markets that value is subjective and circumstantial. If so how can there be an 'objective currency'?
Indeed, isn't the underpinning of the Lucas Critique that the influence and effect of macropolicies isn't predictable because of the subjective reflexivity of markets?

Also, if you actually watched the video, you'd see that Dalio argues that over time productivity increases - which makes sense to me since knowledge accumulates best practices are diffused and dissipated across industries and between industries, companies invest in efficiencies and process improvements (certainly the ones that survive - hence the survivorship bias of the S&P 500) - since productivity increases over time, shouldn't the amount of capital in circulation increase with the increase in general productivity?

>>10424447
>he doesn't understand metaphor

>>10424556
>A thing is only a cycle if it happens more than once

>economies dont happen more than once

>>10425047
Mate, an economy where wall street spends 170BN per year doing buybacks for vaporware tech stocks is different than one where you ride a horse to the powered wig store

>>10425100
Not really, you can find applicable analogies everywhere, human behavior and society is remarkably self-consistent.
>I'm an alchemist, I have this wondrous new method of changing lead into gold!
>Here's a year's worth of dubloons my good fellow!

>>10424993
>isn't the basic underpinning of Free Markets that value is subjective and circumstantial. If so how can there be an 'objective currency'?
It is true, that value is ultimately subjective. However, in the long run, a currency that has fixed properties, for instance a fixed supply cap, will be more stable and predictable. (This is not yet the case for bitcoin, because bitcoin is still growing in adoption.) Lets assume bitcoin is at 100% adoption (everyone in the world is using this currency system). Something that is priced at 1 bitcoin today, should be worth approximately 1 bitcoin 50 years from now. Bitcoin would be perceived as an objective measurement of wealth, as it would be able to measure the value of an item over a long period of time, without major changes. The dollar is not like this. The dollar is inflationary, and will continue to deceive the public, by tricking them into thinking the overall value of goods (and overall productivity) increases over time.

>productivity increases over time, shouldn't the amount of capital in circulation increase with the increase in general productivity
It is a Keynesian lie that you must expand the currency supply in order to adjust for an increase in overall productivity. Doing so, only introduces deception into the system that tricks everyday consumers. You don't increase the number of centimeters in a meter because the universe is expanding.

>>10425149
Bollocks. Even something as pivotal as fiat money has only been really used for 50 years or so.

>>10425160
Yeah, maybe I'm a brainlet but I can't reconcile the fundamental subjectivity of value and the need for an objective or at the very least static measure of value.
As I see it you can't call any currency 'objective' because the value is arbitrary owing to the subjectivity of value - ice to the eskimos versus ice to someone in the desert: same commodity, different ''value".
While I can understand why it is important to keep a fungible currency static, it still seems arbitrary and pointless since even if the price of a bitcoin was rock solid, for example, there is no reason to believe the buying power of it would be stable.

>You don't increase the number of centimeters in a meter because the universe is expanding.
Yeah but there is an objective definition of a meter - something to do with the speed of light, I can't remember how they defined it - but it's a replicable event (since they realized that basing it on the time it took to beam back from the moon would result in a shifting measure).
Values change as some commodities, products, become more or less scarce and demand fluctuates, you can't create a 'objective value' experiment.

What's your thoughts on it?

>>10425237
How does that invalidate what I said in anyway? Analogies still exist - everything didn't magically change when Nixon created the floating dollar.

>>10425100
i understand where your coming from, but economic cycles really arent too hard to believe. greed and fear are timeless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets

>>10425250
It invalidates it because there is no mechanism that would support a cycle on those timescales. The nature of world economics changes too dramatically across centuries for it to sustain.

>>10425274
Could you give a concrete example of non-cyclidity where the common narrative is to describe it as a cycle?
otherwise it just all sounds abstract and I'm not sure if I can agree with you or not.

>>10425295
This video in this thread, claiming a boom and bust cycle of 70 to 100 years.

>>10425250
In the short term, yes. Someone could be willing to sell or buy their asset for a different price in the future. But long term, nothing changes too much. Check out this gold to wheat ratio chart. Notice how stable it is before the floating dollar.

While the short term price isn't objective, the long term price is.

Everything did change when nixon created the floating dollar. Our currency lost the last bit of objectivism it had.

>>10425336
Could you be more specific, citing actual historical events commonly seen as intertwined parts of a cycle but you believe aren't?

>>10425399
But isn't that only applicable to this one commodity? and, correct me if I'm wrong, it's a commodity which is heavily subsidized (of course I could be wrong - and it wasn't subsidized in the early days). As I understand it Ray Dalio is saying that over the totality of the economy productivity increases, that is to say the outcome for the same amount of man-hours increases.

I mean, it might be an urban legend, but didn't the French Royal family have luxury dishes made of aluminum because at the time it was difficult to mine? Likewise transistors and microchips have changed vastly in price? Salt too. I could go on.

>>10425463
Nigga do you know what you're typing? Did you even watch the video in the OP?
Go watch it again, make a list of the "historical events" that it references and Ill deal with them on a one by one basis.
Ill wait.

>>10425494
Well yeah. If there are changes to the commodity (government starts subsidizing, there's a shortage etc.) then yes their prices will change for those economic reasons. What I am trying to explain is a lot of times, goods will continue to appreciate not due to these economic factors, but due to the unit their being measured with's depreciation. Of course a products' price changes based on societies demand for it. Society should still be measuring it with something that has as little change as possible. (Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but I gotta get some sleep).

>>10424365
>Posts this and all of a sudden 1 post by this ID Kvetching
I wonder. There has been a guy posting on the board for the past week about inflation being the best thing ever. This is almost certainly him again.

>>10425399
Congrats, youre one of biggest brainlets on /biz/. Edgy ancap contrarian with no understanding of history, economics, valuation or social implications

>>10425534
To be honest I watched it a few times a year ago.
I'm not very well going to pick an example because you're then going to accuse me of cheery picking: that's why I want you to pick an example of them because obviously in between a random poster on /biz/ - the board that shills Link and Bitbean, and the guy who runs one of the world's largest hedgefunds and advises sovereign pension funds, I'm gonna err towards the latter than you, and likewise you shouldn't trust everything I say until I can back it up with evidence and logic.

Although if you like I will provide one or two examples for you to comment on?

so is OPs video just Keynesian economics?

What would be the equivalent for Austrian economics

>>10425583
No everything you say makes perfect sense and I think you've explained it well - that a commodity like wheat more or less will stay at the same price overtime if the currency wasn't floating. That's why you're saying that the floating currency distorts the perception of the wheat price, and by extension the price of everything, which is why putting more money into circulation is bullshit - right?