I imagine very few people would be interested in smart contracts if it became a defacto legal standard in the US and Europe that these contracts are unenforceable.
Of course this doesn't address contracts being written out of Russia or traditional financial havens, but how valuable is a vehicle which can't be used to move assets into or within the US or Europe?
I think the question of enforcement is the wrong one.
Sure, but those are backed by different legally binding contracts which also give legal recourse to buyers. My point is that unlike other types of synthetic assets these seem to have no legal backing and could quite conceivably be regulated out of existence in the future.
Are these assets backed by legally binding contracts? If the answer is no it doesn't seem like a stretch.
If I sold you a stock in my company that gave you none of the traditional shareholder rights I'd also call those shares "fake", which seems to be what's going on here.
Note that the light red color is actually still indicating a positive real return, this is particularly relevant in the 70s and early 80s when a 2% real return would be a much higher nominal return.
Agreed that some people expect returns for time horizons as short as 10 years though, which is clearly a mistake.
That said I think there's some important drawbacks to point out.
First, that 7% figure that's often quoted is usually meant to mean nominal return. At least, that's the way it works relative to the commonly cited 4% SWR.
Second, buying and selling exactly once will greatly increase the variability of returns and also the likelihood of negative returns. It's important though to realize that this isn't actually how almost anyone invests, so just counting periods of negative returns under that assumption isn't particularly meaningful.
He doesn't discuss the problems or limitations. Here's his section on "assessing" myer briggs
>I tend to test as an “INTP.” Everyone now understands the usefulness of introversion versus extroversion. The difference between the “P” (extreme comfort with uncertainty) vs. colleagues and romantic partners who are “J” (a tendency to nail things down, to be decisive and minimize uncertainty) has also been useful at times. When I interview people I also sometimes notice the “S” (sensing) tendency to be super literal and concrete, in good and bad ways, versus the more abstract “N” (intuition). I think it’s particularly useful to track S vs. N between yourself and someone you work for or who works for you, because communication difficulties may boil down to that dimension, and it’s useful to have a vocabulary for the tension.
He doesn't pause for even a second to consider that perhaps myer briggs could be a bad tool for determining these aspects of a personality or to acknowledge that even if this was the case, people don't behave honestly in professional situations anyway.
All of the fairly meager advice in this is either bad or totally unactionable.
The references to outmoded concepts from pop-psych and generic aphorisms also really aren't convincing me that this person has any idea what they're talking about.