Hacker News Reader

Comment by mumblemumble | Hacker News Reader

This statement, minus the political content, sounds very, very, very similar to what I was hearing about tech stocks a bit over 20 years ago, and houses about 15 years ago.

Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't. If I had some way of knowing, I'd have a lot more money than I am now. It's worth remembering, though, that prices are just that: prices. Nothing more, nothing less.

View on HN

Yeah me too - I remember when AMZN was $2. I remember when AAPL was 28 cents (before splits, etc). I remember when the Internet had a host of pundits proclaiming it was a dying fad in 2001.

And most anyone who bought a house at the peak of the bubble is doing quite well if they still have it today.

Are you familiar with the concept of survivorship bias?

It's an important concept to remember when talking about the long term outcomes from adverse market events. "If they still have it today," for example, is a useful qualifier, because it subtly renders the statement almost tautological. "Sure, it was a bloodbath, but all the people who survived seem to be doing OK."

Yeah, don't go on margin is the lesson there. People that lost their hat on the housing crises borrowed too much (went too far on margin, which is what a home loan is). Anyone who just kept investing during any market crash in history is sitting well.

So yeah, it's up to you.

Those stocks were issued by businesses that were providing goods and services for people and being paid in return.

The counterpoint is Japan: its economy peaked around 1990, and still hasn't recovered to that level, 30 years later.

> This statement, minus the political content, sounds very, very, very similar to what I was hearing about tech stocks a bit over 20 years ago, and houses about 15 years ago.

Well those two performed pretty damn spectacularly in the past 20 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com