Hacker News Reader

Comment by lastofthemojito | Hacker News Reader

> Lately I have been feeling like the economy just broke on a fundamental level over the past year.

I've been thinking that recently too, although it's possible that I'm only now paying attention because I've finally become someone who has enough money to ask "what do I do with my surplus money?". That's not something I had to concern myself with 10 or 20 years ago.

Some folks will rightly point out that there have always been fads, but things feel quite outlandish these days with GME/Wallstreetbets, Bitcoin, NFTs, SPACs. The stock market as a whole has done well over the past year, but it's been outpaced by stuff that feels like people counting on a greater fool. But then here I am on the sidelines, avoiding the riskiest stuff, and of course a bit envious of their returns, so who's really the fool? Shrug

View on HN

Something I wonder about is whether the inflow of money into all these "assets" is indeed driven by people with buckets of excess capital, or actually from people who could use the cash in hand the most. Anecdotally I know individuals crushed by student loans/HCOL who immediately threw their stimulus checks into crypto and meme stocks with the rationale that if they lose it all, a few thousand dollars would've made no difference on their debt anyways whereas getting on the next rocketship trend early could become a life-changing sum of money. I agree something is fundamentally broken if we've reached the point where we live in a casino economy, I don't know how long it can last and the long-term potential consequences are quite concerning

This has never bothered me.

Those same people could always go to an actual casino with only negative expected value games so why spend any thought on it? It seems so incongruent to suddenly care when someone decides to play a positive expected value game.

The only consequence is that people still dont want to give random entrepreneurs their money if they dont have a certain pedigree. Thats the best way for money to circulate in the economy and people dont have the confidence in that to do it. So expect greater market distortions while the government still attempts to get people to do the one thing they dont want to do. People will rather buy bonds at lower and negative yields for capital preservation, or they will rather buy collectibles and crypto for capital growth. The macro trend is clear.

except a lot of these people aren’t ones who’d normally gamble at all but there’s a thin veneer of respectability when it’s “investing”

Economics tells us that the marginal propensity to consume is higher among low-income individuals than high-income individuals. So without delving into the details, I think it's reasonable to assume that a much greater percentage of investors in crypto/meme stocks/etc. are wealth(ier) individuals. Not to mention that those wealthier individuals just have a lot more money to invest in the first place, far and above a few stimulus payments.

> with the rationale that if they lose it all, a few thousand dollars would've made no difference on their debt anyways whereas getting on the next rocketship trend early could become a life-changing sum of money.

Sigh. The lottery is a tax on stupidity.

>Sigh. The lottery is a tax on stupidity.

This sentiment has been trotted out before but if I get $1 worth of entertainment from a lottery ticket then it's not a tax on anything. Most people don't expect to win the lottery but the thought of "what if" is worth the money they pay. And the money seems to go to good causes in most states so I can't see how anyone could criticize playing the lottery unless you're doing it with money you can't afford to lose. This is all supported by very simple economic principles, as well. You might as well say a $6 Starbucks coffee is a tax on stupidity.

"Stupidity" (innumeracy, really) is a prerequisite for finding the lottery entertaining. The thought of "what if" is predicated on the idea that buying a lottery ticket meaningfully increases your chances of winning. You may as well fantasize about finding a bag of money in the street; it's cheaper and the expected returns are better. And as for "money you can afford to lose" - there's no threshold where money stops being money. Buying one lottery ticket is just as fallacious as buying a thousand; the only difference is the magnitude of the error.

On the other hand, if you do find the lottery entertaining - despite how irrational it is to do so - no amount of lecturing or calling you innumerate will change your mind. So you may as well buy the damn lottery ticket :)

> I can't see how anyone could criticize playing the lottery unless you're doing it with money you can't afford to lose.

This is the majority of lottery players, you know?

You don't get $400 million jackpots by rich people playing.

You get $400 million jackpots by fleecing a lot of poor people.

You should articulated my thoughts/situation with an eerie level of precision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com