Hacker News Reader

Comment by axegon_ | Hacker News Reader

> 2008 is coming again soon

I have no idea why people __LOVE__ making these statements. 2008 was something that affected mostly the US and while it affected the rest of the world to a certain degree, overall very little changed.

Before jumping on my throat, hear me out: There have been several significant financial events since then: the European debt crisis, then Portugal(which is relatively small on a global scale), same with Ukraine and Venezuela, Russia(still going 5 years later), Brazil and those are just off the top of my head. What I'm trying to say is that financial crisis occur almost every year. Keeping your finances tidy is a good life advise but prophecies shouldn't be the motivation for it.

View on HN

I'm equally perplexed as to why people always seem to think a big downturn is right around the corner. Maybe there are always enough warning signs that someone with a sufficient penchant for confirmation bias will latch on to.

Regardless, nobody can tell the future - there are simply too many unknowns to consider. We will certainly have more good times and bad times. As to when they come, predict all you want, but historically analyst predictions have an awful track record (historically, expert predictions are wrong most of the time https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/ ). The occasional person who guessed right previously (there will always be some) are then raised up as oracles.

> I'm equally perplexed as to why people always seem to think a big downturn is right around the corner.

There will be a downturn, sooner or later. Predict it every year and eventually you go down as the person who predicted the downturn.

My point exactly. A broken watch is right twice a day. Let's assume that we are all in a simulation. A statement such as "the entity that created the simulation will pull the plug in what we perceive as two minutes". Well yeah, sure... Is it a valid statement? Yes. Is it accurate? Hell if I know.

In a nutshell, Austrian economics. Central banks have made money ridiculously cheap for over a decade, and this leads to malinvestment: investors pour this cheap money into projects that probably yield negative real returns, because there is way more money floating around than viable projects to spend it on. Spend capital on negative-yielding projects for long enough and you erode the productive capacity of the economy until a crisis hits.

That’s the story; hard to say how well it describes reality but there’s surely a modicum of truth in there at least.

Time and date may not be predictable, but the simple math behind the modern monetary system of central banks is quite clear. Print or die. Inflation or recession. When the F.R.B. of the USA stops printing the market crashes. You can watch it happen if you are watching what they do. Since they are now wholly locked in a corner they only have the two options. Inflation or depression. Soon they will purchase stocks outright. We may not actually see a 2008 type scenario, but I'm not going to bet my house, car, and business on it. If we all saved and did not borrow, they could not print.

If time and date are unpredictable, what's the use? Suppose you switch to conservative investments now -- say, bonds. You're going to be hit less hard by the recession, but you also will have missed out on gains.

So, unless you believe you can time the market, it doesn't appear like there is much to do except to make sure you have a rainy day fund.

All my other money goes into the system.

Your sentiments contribute to the bubble. It is possible to live without forking your money over to the stock market. It is harder to grow great wealth, but that is phony wealth at the moment or soon enough. If everyone invested in themselves, demanded a stable gold or gold backed currency, and eschewed the bubble gains in the markets, the gains would not be there and the manipulation would not be possible. That would reflect the reality of our current situation. Times will get tougher the longer we wait to see reality.

> while it affected the rest of the world to a certain degree, overall very little changed.

This only makes sense if you are making a sharp distinction between the 2008 US crisis and the European debt crisis, which is probably not what the parent meant. That's why people would strongly disagree with you.

>>I have no idea why people __LOVE__ making these statements. 2008 was something that affected mostly the US and while it affected the rest of the world to a certain degree, overall very little changed.

US is back on top. How's Italy, Greece, Spain etc doing?

I dont know why this is downvoted - the EU implemented austerity and it took a gigantic chunk out of its economy in the last ten years - why is this controversial?

Spain's growth rate has been what, 0%? Greece is totally screwed, and there's a strong set of evidence to say Brexit was a direct result of the 2008 crisis (because they pushed back so hard on austerity.)

> there's a strong set of evidence to say Brexit was a direct result of the 2008 crisis.

Nah. The only selling point on the referendum was immigration. The only one people really cared about anyway.

A lot of people cared about Democracy and the ability to hold the politicians we elected accountable for the decisions that were made. Mass immigration was important, but it wasn't the only factor.

Greece is a very different animal altogether and I struggle to see how it will ever recover. I've been to Greece and I'm sorry to say but the same problems are obvious at every step of the socioeconomic ladder.

Italy and Spain are recovering - new businesses are emerging, unemployment in Spain is down by 12% from 26%, Italy is at ~9.5% unemployment.

Comparing several small countries to the US is completely pointless given the difference in population, area, industry , resources and so on...

They are essentially colonial dependents of Berlin. Which may have been the point all along.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com