How Covid brought the future back(worksinprogress.co)
worksinprogress.co
How Covid brought the future back
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-covid-brought-the-future-back/
77 comments
Post-WWII R&D was vastly different from what R&D is like now. No one is funding research that isn't directly product-related or with an unclear or long-term ROI like that anymore. There never will be a Bell Labs or PARC every again. Incremental improvements are the future now.
I sometimes wonder how different human culture would have developed without fossil fuels of any kind - it would likely mean no industrial revolution, right? No coal, no gas, etc. I think fossil fuels essentially moved us so far up in a Kardeshev type energy utilization that technological breakthroughs could really snowball exponentially. And fossil fuels only exist because for a hundreds of millions of years bacteria didn’t exist to break down trees or fiber. I could see that being an evolutionary tick being answered as a result of random processes possible to happen much faster.
Anyway, without fossil fuels we may still be where we were before them - so dark ages, I think. Without fossil fuels I don’t know whether we’d ever have even the conception to seek out higher concentrations of energy. And it’s that energy concentration that still powers most of our civilization.
All of which is to say, we could be on the verge to reduce ourselves to only marginal increments on what is currently available at that sort of power concentration, or worse. Or we could realize things like nuclear power open up still more exponential power concentrations.
Anyway, without fossil fuels we may still be where we were before them - so dark ages, I think. Without fossil fuels I don’t know whether we’d ever have even the conception to seek out higher concentrations of energy. And it’s that energy concentration that still powers most of our civilization.
All of which is to say, we could be on the verge to reduce ourselves to only marginal increments on what is currently available at that sort of power concentration, or worse. Or we could realize things like nuclear power open up still more exponential power concentrations.
The first industrial revolution (which btw happened long after the dark ages and well into the early modern era) was marked by a transition to waterpower & steam (which can also be generated by burning wood) and of course windmills are even older, so it's possible to have happened without fossil fuels - it would just develop differently.
Maybe we'd have massive build out of hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, steam engines powered by wood harvested from artificial forests optimized for fast growth/hot burning trees. You could still have air travel by airships & trains will still be workable albeit slower than our trains.
Maybe Iceland would be contentious territory due to geothermal resources, like the middle eastern petrostates in the 20th/21st centuries.
Maybe we'd have massive build out of hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, steam engines powered by wood harvested from artificial forests optimized for fast growth/hot burning trees. You could still have air travel by airships & trains will still be workable albeit slower than our trains.
Maybe Iceland would be contentious territory due to geothermal resources, like the middle eastern petrostates in the 20th/21st centuries.
I read somewhere how the industrial revolution was a consequence of disallowing slave labour/inhumanly hard labour.
The greek had invented steam powered machines, but considered them a curiosity,or a way to push open doors 'by the gods' without human labour.
The industrial revolution, in that vision, happened when mines still needed a way to push the ore up, but humans didn't do it anymore for a price that made it worthwile.
So there was a clear need for an alternative, and that made people look around. steam power was already known, but started to make economic sense. Hence, it got perfected.
The greek had invented steam powered machines, but considered them a curiosity,or a way to push open doors 'by the gods' without human labour.
The industrial revolution, in that vision, happened when mines still needed a way to push the ore up, but humans didn't do it anymore for a price that made it worthwile.
So there was a clear need for an alternative, and that made people look around. steam power was already known, but started to make economic sense. Hence, it got perfected.
Isn't Alphabet X somewhat similar?
This article is all over the place. The author starts with some history on how crisis and necessity for better life brings ideas to life, and then half the article is defending his view on the TSLA stock.
Apart from this, yes ,it’s cleat that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and companies are forced to innovate as the current struggles provide them opportunities to shine.
Apart from this, yes ,it’s cleat that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and companies are forced to innovate as the current struggles provide them opportunities to shine.
Indeed. I mean, I own Telsa stock, so I'm not unhappy about what it's doing, but I'm not about to invent reasons why it makes sense. Eventually the major manufacturers like Toyota and VW are going to pivot and Tesla is going to be an entertaining footnote of daring that paid off ... in past tense.
The brand is incredibly strong. It wont become a footnote. At this point they will make it standalone or be purchased by another company. I dont think fading away into obscurity is in the cards.
That's fanboyism.
Most places on the world dont have the infrastructure for electric cars yet.
But I'll be damned if you won't find a Toyota Hilux in the most backwater village behind a mountain range.
I know a vast majority of people of my friend group who aren't in tech have no idea about tesla and at best have heard the name something something electric car something something Elon Musk
Compared to VW or Toyota - who shift millions of units in every concievable market - Tesla is just a cute curiosity like the carmakers of the 20s.
Most places on the world dont have the infrastructure for electric cars yet.
But I'll be damned if you won't find a Toyota Hilux in the most backwater village behind a mountain range.
I know a vast majority of people of my friend group who aren't in tech have no idea about tesla and at best have heard the name something something electric car something something Elon Musk
Compared to VW or Toyota - who shift millions of units in every concievable market - Tesla is just a cute curiosity like the carmakers of the 20s.
What's odd is that there's a fairly strong sentiment that EVs are the future, but some of the existing automakers seem to still be covering their ears and singing.
If Tesla starts suffering mortal market-share wounds, they will still be a compelling acquisition target for one of the existing automakers who are late to the EV party-- you get a ready-made bag of patents, supply chain, and designs. You can immediately start building a Model 3 with an Acura or Chrysler badge, and you've got something to ship to dealers in countries with punitive tax regime or ban on gas cars, and a few more years runway to fully adapt the design into a full full own-brand EV.
If Tesla starts suffering mortal market-share wounds, they will still be a compelling acquisition target for one of the existing automakers who are late to the EV party-- you get a ready-made bag of patents, supply chain, and designs. You can immediately start building a Model 3 with an Acura or Chrysler badge, and you've got something to ship to dealers in countries with punitive tax regime or ban on gas cars, and a few more years runway to fully adapt the design into a full full own-brand EV.
> some of the existing automakers seem to still be covering their ears and singing
Some, but the more common story is "traditional automaker pouring billions into EV production to make up for lost time."
> If Tesla starts suffering mortal market-share wounds, they will still be a compelling acquisition target
More importantly they'd need to suffer mortal market cap wounds. At anything like current prices they're not only dreadful value, they're simply unaffordable. At the moment Tesla buying a large traditional automaker is more likely than the reverse (though maybe not likely in an absolute sense.)
Some, but the more common story is "traditional automaker pouring billions into EV production to make up for lost time."
> If Tesla starts suffering mortal market-share wounds, they will still be a compelling acquisition target
More importantly they'd need to suffer mortal market cap wounds. At anything like current prices they're not only dreadful value, they're simply unaffordable. At the moment Tesla buying a large traditional automaker is more likely than the reverse (though maybe not likely in an absolute sense.)
So maybe a showcase that a great combination of words in a title is enough to generate upvotes?
Interesting observation. I wonder if the number of upvotes depends more on the quality of the article or the quality of comments. I have to admit that even here, I personally didn't even open the article but rather went straight to the comments.
In fact, some economists continued to argue after 2000 that “bubble” is a meaningless category.
Uh oh.
"Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau" - Irving Fisher, economist, early October 1929.
Uh oh.
"Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau" - Irving Fisher, economist, early October 1929.
There is something different this time.
People en masse have started using the S&P 500 and other index funds as a long term store of value. Large amounts of money buy these stocks every pay period with zero regard to performance or current market conditions.
As far as I'm aware, this has never happened before. We don't know how this experiment will change the market long term or whether it will eventually collapse.
People en masse have started using the S&P 500 and other index funds as a long term store of value. Large amounts of money buy these stocks every pay period with zero regard to performance or current market conditions.
As far as I'm aware, this has never happened before. We don't know how this experiment will change the market long term or whether it will eventually collapse.
It’s different every time, isn’t it? World War II was different, the oil crisis in the 70s was different, debt in the 80s, doctom bubble in the 90s, the financial crisis was really different, and now this pandemic and the sheer volumes of money. It’s different every time, but economic growth has been a constant and tied to this are ultimately the prices of securities. That’s not gonna be different. So it’s a very sane choice to invest in a broad ETF eg based on the S&P.
Index funds are a good, safe set and forget option. In boring times, the performance is not much worse and even sometimes better. In times of upheaval though, the high volatility makes active trading MUCH more profitable.
At least, they always have been. With many people pouring money into them solely because they're "safe", it's possible that they have managed to turn a safe investment into a risky one,a la mortgages in the 2000s.
Currently the S&P 500 has a P/E of 40, a number it historically hits before crashes. Of course the pandemic makes that figure less meaningful long term than it already is, but even before the pandemic it was well above a justified level.
I have no better advice for people. I have theories on why it's overpriced, but I am also invested in broad indexes for lack of a better idea. But it may just be that the long-standing advice has become dated.
Currently the S&P 500 has a P/E of 40, a number it historically hits before crashes. Of course the pandemic makes that figure less meaningful long term than it already is, but even before the pandemic it was well above a justified level.
I have no better advice for people. I have theories on why it's overpriced, but I am also invested in broad indexes for lack of a better idea. But it may just be that the long-standing advice has become dated.
Index funds are safe bet only with economy growing. This is ending now as we are entering japanization of the economy.
> high volatility makes active trading MUCH more profitable
Or much more loss-making, depending how lucky you are.
Or much more loss-making, depending how lucky you are.
Absolutely. At the same time it’s also much riskier.
Equities are a good investment because that's where government bailout money goes. Until one day it stops or until enough rich/richish people try to sell equities for consumption it real assets (like building a house) and then the bottom falls out.
As far as I'm aware, this has never happened before
No worries. We can fix that.
I first heard the argument you made used to explain why the market would continue to go up indefinitely in the late 90’s.
But that’s only because I was old enough to pay attention then. I don’t doubt in the least that it was used in the 80’s as well.
No worries. We can fix that.
I first heard the argument you made used to explain why the market would continue to go up indefinitely in the late 90’s.
But that’s only because I was old enough to pay attention then. I don’t doubt in the least that it was used in the 80’s as well.
You're absolutely right, its not the same and it will likely fail in ways we can't predict just yet.
The 2008 crisis taught the US Federal Reserve how to respond to an economic crisis effectively, and they've been pretty successful at managing the current one. Note that Fed's main concerns are macroeconomic, so their assistance necessarily goes mostly to larger corporations and financial institutions, which seem to be doing OK (smaller businesses are suffering, but Congress stepped in for them... somewhat). I don't anticipate a liquidity shortage-triggered panic + recession like 2008.
However, all asset prices seem to be inflated. Real estate, crypto, stocks... all going up and up. They can't do so forever, it will be interesting to see how it fails this time.
The 2008 crisis taught the US Federal Reserve how to respond to an economic crisis effectively, and they've been pretty successful at managing the current one. Note that Fed's main concerns are macroeconomic, so their assistance necessarily goes mostly to larger corporations and financial institutions, which seem to be doing OK (smaller businesses are suffering, but Congress stepped in for them... somewhat). I don't anticipate a liquidity shortage-triggered panic + recession like 2008.
However, all asset prices seem to be inflated. Real estate, crypto, stocks... all going up and up. They can't do so forever, it will be interesting to see how it fails this time.
When you tie pricing metrics to interest rates, they are either not inflated or not that inflated.
You have to account for the amount of money in the system and how that money seeks to beat inflation.
You can't just pick up 40-year old chart analysis books and say "aha the P/E ratio for this sector is higher than normal", it is all part of an ecosystem.
The macroeconomic policy is going to be a greater influence than any chart-based psychology proxy or seeing how many essential workers are talking about investing their spare change.
Right now, more money is going to be created or distributed in the trillions. If the Central Banks are instructed to be involved, or chose to be involved, their method of getting new money into the market will be by purchasing more bonds which pushes interest rates even lower.
The only thing this didn't predict were new ephemeral asset classes, crypto. That people are opting to buy.
You have to account for the amount of money in the system and how that money seeks to beat inflation.
You can't just pick up 40-year old chart analysis books and say "aha the P/E ratio for this sector is higher than normal", it is all part of an ecosystem.
The macroeconomic policy is going to be a greater influence than any chart-based psychology proxy or seeing how many essential workers are talking about investing their spare change.
Right now, more money is going to be created or distributed in the trillions. If the Central Banks are instructed to be involved, or chose to be involved, their method of getting new money into the market will be by purchasing more bonds which pushes interest rates even lower.
The only thing this didn't predict were new ephemeral asset classes, crypto. That people are opting to buy.
You're absolutely right, its not the same and it will likely fail in ways we can't predict just yet.
Yes. We haven't yet had a bubble collapse in a time of zero or negative real interest rates. When it happens, cutting interest rates will not be an option. That option has been used up.
Yes. We haven't yet had a bubble collapse in a time of zero or negative real interest rates. When it happens, cutting interest rates will not be an option. That option has been used up.
Like a junkie chasing that first high. You keep needing more and more but never get close to the first, until suddenly you wake up and realizing your life collapsed around you and your drug doesn't work at all anymore.
> a long term store of value
Or a short term way to escape moneyprinting and inflation until the rates become sane.
Or a short term way to escape moneyprinting and inflation until the rates become sane.
> There is something different this time.
There always is. And then, abruptly, there isn’t anymore.
There always is. And then, abruptly, there isn’t anymore.
> There is something different this time.
Do you know which are the 4 most expensive words in English? "This time it's different."
Do you know which are the 4 most expensive words in English? "This time it's different."
I've been listening to people say this "uh oh" since 2009. I think literally every year. Not a single year has gone by when someone doesn't "uh oh" and post something about turkeys at Thanksgiving.
That's the boom/bust cycle. Bubble inflates until it pops. We can't have 0 interested and equity prices growing faster than the underlying businesses. Once labor runs out of money for rent-seekers to extract without killing them, it's over.
The people who predicted 17 out of the last 3 recessions are still less wrong than the ones who think there will never be another recession. Just wrong more often.
They both have precisely the same amount of signal, ie none. One just unconditionally predicts a recession and the other unconditionally predicts good times.
you could’ve posted this same comment in 2007, or 1999... etc...
The turkey is good for the Thanksgiving day host and guests. Just figure out a way to not be the turkey. There's always a winner or loser, rarely everyone loses. Diversity is key.
> a striking rise in investor interest in electric vehicles, autonomous cars, AI, and software companies ranging from consumer-facing companies like Facebook and Google to complex enterprise products like Snowflake
... Or, a striking rise in investing in whatever the mob thinks will make money, even when it is not, from tesla to bitcoin. If they were investing in the future they 'd be investing in ModeRNA / Biontech
... Or, a striking rise in investing in whatever the mob thinks will make money, even when it is not, from tesla to bitcoin. If they were investing in the future they 'd be investing in ModeRNA / Biontech
Why is everything a large group of people do collectively called a 'mob' these days, for everything? Is no one allowed to do things together anymore without being chastised?
because mobs act impulsively and blindly follow the leaders
Not the leaders directly; the mob follows each other.
>Why is everything a large group of people do collectively called a 'mob' these days?
These days? It's always been thus.
The Roman Poet Juvenal who said:
"It is all too easy to fall from power – like Sejanus. The mob follows Fortuna and cares for nothing but bread and circuses." (Circuses can also be games, or in modern times TV, Games, Netflix, Reddit, etc...).
You ever see Gladiator?
Lucilla: "The gods have spared you. Today I saw a slave become more powerful than the Emperor of Rome."
Maximus: "The gods have spared me? I am at their mercy, with the power only to amuse a mob!"
Lucilla: "That is power. The mob is Rome. And while Commodus controls them he controls everything."
We have a literal cult controlling at least 40% of the minds of the USA (QAnon). A literal mob almost led a successful insurrection. (If they were more organized, they would've had a higher body count).
A literal mob, possibly manipulated by finance majors orchestrated a pump-and-dump under the guise of "stick it to the man", just disrupted wallstreet in a pretty spectacular way. Sure, they did stick it to the man, for a bit - but I'm sure a lot of people also lost their ass on this.
In a mob there's a bunch of people who basically just are following a fluid current in history, most are unaware as to why and the best answer is probably: "I wasn't doing anything else, so why not?", or "So and so told me, and I trust them" and often that trust is mis-placed, like believing a highschool dropout's opinion on climate change instead of the consensus by 90%+ of the leading scientists across the globe.
These days? It's always been thus.
The Roman Poet Juvenal who said:
"It is all too easy to fall from power – like Sejanus. The mob follows Fortuna and cares for nothing but bread and circuses." (Circuses can also be games, or in modern times TV, Games, Netflix, Reddit, etc...).
You ever see Gladiator?
Lucilla: "The gods have spared you. Today I saw a slave become more powerful than the Emperor of Rome."
Maximus: "The gods have spared me? I am at their mercy, with the power only to amuse a mob!"
Lucilla: "That is power. The mob is Rome. And while Commodus controls them he controls everything."
We have a literal cult controlling at least 40% of the minds of the USA (QAnon). A literal mob almost led a successful insurrection. (If they were more organized, they would've had a higher body count).
A literal mob, possibly manipulated by finance majors orchestrated a pump-and-dump under the guise of "stick it to the man", just disrupted wallstreet in a pretty spectacular way. Sure, they did stick it to the man, for a bit - but I'm sure a lot of people also lost their ass on this.
In a mob there's a bunch of people who basically just are following a fluid current in history, most are unaware as to why and the best answer is probably: "I wasn't doing anything else, so why not?", or "So and so told me, and I trust them" and often that trust is mis-placed, like believing a highschool dropout's opinion on climate change instead of the consensus by 90%+ of the leading scientists across the globe.
You really think that 40% of people are being controlled by an internet troll?
40% say that Trump won the election.
It will take a couple of years to see how many people are QAnon/Trump zealots and how many are Republicans held hostage while waiting for someone to viably step up.
But for now, it's 40% that's a mix of cultists and people who act like cultists for the time being.
But for now, it's 40% that's a mix of cultists and people who act like cultists for the time being.
In fairness, electric cars are the future and everyone knows it. Sure, the company Tesla may not be the exact one to steer the ship in 20 years, but it’s not like we’re backing zeppelins here.
Electrification of cars does not justify trillion dollar investment. It's already a solved problem, it needs incremental investment to scale horizontally. Making the cars and the charger network is the kind of thing that is easily commodified and outsourced. The more challenging problem will be to provide adequate electricity for the cars.
Self-driving is a pipe-dream and a marketing vehicle, not gonna happen anytime soon.
Self-driving is a pipe-dream and a marketing vehicle, not gonna happen anytime soon.
Maybe a solar and energy storage investment would help...
Well, they did that too...
Saving the world economy from a pandemic and creating the equivalent of a vaccine printer
= 2x their stock price. If anything i d say investors are being pessimistic
Or they realize that the vaccine is temporary and vaccine companies aren't able to extract rent from saving the economy, due to either competition or government/social pressure.
The mRNA tech is a vaccine and future cancer cure printer, the proof of concept should be enough for people to realize the enormous potential
[deleted]
But those stocks' rises pale in comparison to the rises of some of the aforementioned securities - particularly Tesla.
BioNTech/Moderna are poised to income streams of billions of $ through guaranteed sales, with the very real possibility of more to come if either revaccination is necessary or there are more applications for the mRNA technology.
With that in mind, they are quite conservatively valued by the market right now.
BioNTech/Moderna are poised to income streams of billions of $ through guaranteed sales, with the very real possibility of more to come if either revaccination is necessary or there are more applications for the mRNA technology.
With that in mind, they are quite conservatively valued by the market right now.
Moderna has not been distributing its vaccines fast enough internationally. There is a timer to these things you know, because the virus can mutate more. For that reason I'd rather put my investment in 3D printing or something.
OTOH the mRNA vaxs can mutate as fast as the virus.
It's a weekend of work to change the spike mRNA in both mRNA vaccines to accommodate a new virus mutation. An additional 4-5 weeks for production to take this new formulation from code to finished vaccine. So in a matter of 6 weeks total, a variant can be countered by a new vaccine variant, if necessary.
Since the results of the regulatory tests and safety and efficacy validations can mostly be transferred for slight vaccine modifications (at least that's my state of knowledge), a variation should not have to go through the entire chain of test phases again before it can be cleared for use.
If anything, the prospect of mutations can only be seen as a significant moat for mRNA vaccine manufacturers, because their technology is the fastest when it comes to such adaptions.
Since the results of the regulatory tests and safety and efficacy validations can mostly be transferred for slight vaccine modifications (at least that's my state of knowledge), a variation should not have to go through the entire chain of test phases again before it can be cleared for use.
If anything, the prospect of mutations can only be seen as a significant moat for mRNA vaccine manufacturers, because their technology is the fastest when it comes to such adaptions.
> Since the results of the regulatory tests and safety and efficacy validations can mostly be transferred for slight vaccine modifications
Is that kinda like saying the 737-MAX wasn't really a new type of plane?
Is that kinda like saying the 737-MAX wasn't really a new type of plane?
The biotech sector actually outperformed the tech sector last year.
I agree, that is such a bad take. And the reason we have a renewed asset bubble in the midst of a unprecedented economic contraction is purely because of stimulus and QE.
For me the real "future" covid has already brought is contactless payment, as least in Germany. I know it is not a new thing, but before the first lockdown in March last year, some vendors I frequented didn't even have a POS terminals, some had one but without contactless function. Fastforward to present time, I can pay everywhere I go with just my phone. What a change!
The only problem is that you must touch the grimy touchscreen terminal to give or deny a gratuity. The same touchscreen terminal that the last 500 people touched, and nobody has yet cleaned.
No you don't. Not in Europe, mostly anyway.
I loved when I visited Australia that literally everywhere took Apple Pay, I definitely hope that trend comes to America and the rest of the world
6% return peak bubble to peak bubble is in no way reassuring.
This article seems a bit disjointed and ambling.
Can we also argue that this surge of investment is correlated to people staying at home and thus having more money to spend that would have been used on food, entertainment, etc... ?
İm not sure whether or not this is correct considering the negative economic effects of covid for many people, but it might have caused a surge in investing for a certain deomographic.
Can we also argue that this surge of investment is correlated to people staying at home and thus having more money to spend that would have been used on food, entertainment, etc... ?
İm not sure whether or not this is correct considering the negative economic effects of covid for many people, but it might have caused a surge in investing for a certain deomographic.
Consider the situation in the US:
Unemployment spiked from 4% to 14% yes, but on the flipside, what about the 80% or so that didn't lose their jobs? We still got stimulus checks, while paying less for entertainment and transportation (if we could work from home). What else to do with that extra money? Put it in GameStop, perhaps?
Unemployment spiked from 4% to 14% yes, but on the flipside, what about the 80% or so that didn't lose their jobs? We still got stimulus checks, while paying less for entertainment and transportation (if we could work from home). What else to do with that extra money? Put it in GameStop, perhaps?
COVID made people appreciate the value of technology.
For example, autonomous vehicles, whether automobiles or drones, take on much greater importance when much of the population is restricted to their homes and needs goods delivered, preferrably without interacting with a human.
Machine learning goes from a technology that can make our lives more comfortable and improve the bottom line, to one that can end a global catastophe.
Ending regulatory morass goes from a theoretical interest in the pursuit of abstract GDP growth statistics, to an imperative to prevent any future repetitions of the six week delay in COVID testing caused by the FDA at the outset of the pandemic in the US [1], or the regulatory delays in making available low-cost/makeshift ventilators, rapid at-home COVID tests, etc.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...
For example, autonomous vehicles, whether automobiles or drones, take on much greater importance when much of the population is restricted to their homes and needs goods delivered, preferrably without interacting with a human.
Machine learning goes from a technology that can make our lives more comfortable and improve the bottom line, to one that can end a global catastophe.
Ending regulatory morass goes from a theoretical interest in the pursuit of abstract GDP growth statistics, to an imperative to prevent any future repetitions of the six week delay in COVID testing caused by the FDA at the outset of the pandemic in the US [1], or the regulatory delays in making available low-cost/makeshift ventilators, rapid at-home COVID tests, etc.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...
> For example, autonomous vehicles, whether automobiles or drones, take on much greater importance when much of the population is restricted to their homes and needs goods delivered, preferrably without interacting with a human.
I don't know where you live but here we're being delivered food by people on good old bicycles or cars.
> Machine learning goes from a technology that can make our lives more comfortable and improve the bottom line, to one that can end a global catastophe.
How so ?
COVID made people realise that unchecked globalisation brings Asian viruses to your doorstep in less than 24 hours. That deforestation increase risk of infectious diseases jumping from animals to humans. That most western countries have no manufacturing power when crisis hit (masks, ICU beds, alcohol gels &c.). That countries relying almost entirely on tourism are one step away from complete collapse. That a very large part of western countries are absolutely clueless at handling emergencies.
I personally dont want to live in a world in which I work from home, talk to people through zoom and I'm so scared of human contact that I rely on drones for deliveries. Some people here describe that as heaven, it's hell for me, this isn't a future I'm looking forward to
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/913093387/why-cant-america-ma...
https://blog.prif.org/2020/04/20/sars-cov-2-pandemic-is-an-a...
https://theconversation.com/how-deforestation-helps-deadly-v...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00444-x
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/why-human-impact-environme...
I don't know where you live but here we're being delivered food by people on good old bicycles or cars.
> Machine learning goes from a technology that can make our lives more comfortable and improve the bottom line, to one that can end a global catastophe.
How so ?
COVID made people realise that unchecked globalisation brings Asian viruses to your doorstep in less than 24 hours. That deforestation increase risk of infectious diseases jumping from animals to humans. That most western countries have no manufacturing power when crisis hit (masks, ICU beds, alcohol gels &c.). That countries relying almost entirely on tourism are one step away from complete collapse. That a very large part of western countries are absolutely clueless at handling emergencies.
I personally dont want to live in a world in which I work from home, talk to people through zoom and I'm so scared of human contact that I rely on drones for deliveries. Some people here describe that as heaven, it's hell for me, this isn't a future I'm looking forward to
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/913093387/why-cant-america-ma...
https://blog.prif.org/2020/04/20/sars-cov-2-pandemic-is-an-a...
https://theconversation.com/how-deforestation-helps-deadly-v...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00444-x
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/why-human-impact-environme...
For those saying value investing is dead, i think they simply don’t understand it, thinking it’s just blindly looking at P/e ratios.
it posits two things:
1. Companies have an “intrinsic value” that can be determined based on their earnings, balance sheet, dividends, and analysis.
2. Buy companies that are below this intrinsic value.
The problem with departing from the underlying value of an asset is you’re essentially doing the GME game (greater fool). You’re just relying on someone paying more than you did for something, which can go down as fast as it went up since there’s nothing tangible backing it up. Eventually there are no more greater fools
or you’re just gambling that something will happen in the future to justify the current value, which is exactly a gamble
it posits two things:
1. Companies have an “intrinsic value” that can be determined based on their earnings, balance sheet, dividends, and analysis.
2. Buy companies that are below this intrinsic value.
The problem with departing from the underlying value of an asset is you’re essentially doing the GME game (greater fool). You’re just relying on someone paying more than you did for something, which can go down as fast as it went up since there’s nothing tangible backing it up. Eventually there are no more greater fools
or you’re just gambling that something will happen in the future to justify the current value, which is exactly a gamble
> That’s partly an artifact of how policymakers responded to the pandemic; pumping liquidity into the market
I think he should say mostly. Fed balance sheet growth has been unprecendented and those folks who have not lost their jobs and are no longer spending on tourism are dumping their USG direct payments into Robinhood.
I think he should say mostly. Fed balance sheet growth has been unprecendented and those folks who have not lost their jobs and are no longer spending on tourism are dumping their USG direct payments into Robinhood.
This is trash. If there is a point, the author does not seem to know how to get to it, nor support it.
If "The Future" is widespread poverty and massive inequality, then sure.
I hate remote existence. My 2 cents.
Wonder why anything and everything on tesla makes it to the front page.
Covid boosted Capitalism.
The first, raised in the context of development of the transistor and how it was stalled by WW2, is some notion of “future improvement motivation”. The author suggests that the transistor came about because the people involved wanted to improve the future.
I’d assert that the people involved wanted to improve switching speeds and reduce power requirements, and were driven by curiosity. That they changed the world was a side effect. A big one, but unintentional.
The second notion is bound into the idea of people being optimistic about the future and taking as its evidence that people are “investing” for future growth.
My take? A lot of people are afraid and uncertain and are looking desperately for a short term windfall, and some people fear they won’t have a job in X years so they might as well plow their money into whatever is rising.
The author’s position requires rational investors. We know the rational agent model is bunk.
The third questionable idea is that somehow the plague gave us usable time and that people are using this to their advantage. Sure, some may be, but most of us got anxiety, longer hours because work was more accessible (just down the hall) AND a refuge from plague fear and future fear and bad news, et al, etc.
What the author writes may be true for a small fraction of us. But not for most/all.
The term bubble may best describe where the author lives: in an optimistic, future-looking, rational place. Many of us may hope to live there, few of us do.