I like this piece, but it's hard to escape the feeling that so much of what is getting "analysed" in general these days is overwhelmed by the fact that there is tons of free money sloshing around. This Bain piece from 2012 still holds up reasonably well. https://www.bain.com/insights/a-world-awash-in-money/
Indeed you do. I just think that we tend to forget that the vast amounts of financialised capital dwarfing real economic activity à la Picketty r>g is something the world has 'adapted' to without fully appreciating its distorting effects. It creates room for lots of explanations and genius companies.
I find the parallels between late 1800s/early 1900s to current day an interesting comparison. While there are some large differences you/MarketDog dove into, I think the analysis may be too surface level. The *rate of change* in *tech* at both times, and the impacts these had on the economy may be more similar. Almost any office job today is drastically different then they were even in the 90s. These changes have no doubt changed the underlying economy and the way companies are valued. Ultimately, I think drawing conclusions from GDP and SP is makes little sense but changes in society may be reflected by the relationship between these two.
Totally! I think there are parallels between different points in history at all points. Rate of change in tech definitely rivals then, but I think market structure is quite different.
I'm just glad I'm not the only one who uses the word Flation
Flation!
I like this piece, but it's hard to escape the feeling that so much of what is getting "analysed" in general these days is overwhelmed by the fact that there is tons of free money sloshing around. This Bain piece from 2012 still holds up reasonably well. https://www.bain.com/insights/a-world-awash-in-money/
I mentioned easy money in the piece! I think the Bain piece is evergreen, but important to consider the context of the pandemic
off-topic: your TikTok presence is absolutely brilliant
Indeed you do. I just think that we tend to forget that the vast amounts of financialised capital dwarfing real economic activity à la Picketty r>g is something the world has 'adapted' to without fully appreciating its distorting effects. It creates room for lots of explanations and genius companies.
I find the parallels between late 1800s/early 1900s to current day an interesting comparison. While there are some large differences you/MarketDog dove into, I think the analysis may be too surface level. The *rate of change* in *tech* at both times, and the impacts these had on the economy may be more similar. Almost any office job today is drastically different then they were even in the 90s. These changes have no doubt changed the underlying economy and the way companies are valued. Ultimately, I think drawing conclusions from GDP and SP is makes little sense but changes in society may be reflected by the relationship between these two.
Totally! I think there are parallels between different points in history at all points. Rate of change in tech definitely rivals then, but I think market structure is quite different.