Comment on Everyday AI looks more like the '08 housing bubble

balsoft@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  All the economy is a big circle if you draw the circle big enough.

  source

  • balsoft@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    There is no good economic reason to colonize other planets. We have plenty of space here on earth, with conditions already much more hospitable than that of mars - deserts, for example. The resources needed to turn these into habitable land is so much less than the resources required to make even a tiny part of Mars inhabitable (i.e. establish a colony that relies on life support systems) it’s insane to go for Mars first. The reason colonizing Mars is talked about at all is because a rich white dude wants to go to Mars, since deserts are too boring for his spoiled ass.

    I actually agree that it would be cool if we went to Mars. But comparing it to white pillaging of the Americas is just incorrect. Mars is not inhabitable by humans, the americas very much were.

    source

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      deserts, for example.

      floating ocean platforms as well

      source

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Only slightly better than mars, frankly speaking the ocean is about as hostile as you can get without going to space. Maintenance alone would be a fucking nightmare, look at cruise ships or oil rigs for example and you can get a pretty good idea. Unless you are talking about artificial islands since we’ve been doing that for millenia.

        source
  • AppleTea@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Settling mars is a centuries long undertaking. You basically have to nurture a whole ecosystem from scratch… that would be a brutally difficult and lengthy process in the best of conditions. But of course, these aren’t the best conditions. We aren’t doing particularly well with the ecosystem we’ve already got.

    If you want a historical project, then look to balancing modern industry within the planet’s biosphere. It’s a prerequisite to anything happening on mars.

    source

    • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      have you considered that throwing more planrts at the problem eliminates the need for sustainability

      source
  • shane@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Europeans caused massive death in the Americas. I do not think we should replicate that model.

    Also, the chance is small, but there might have been a separate biogenesis (beginning of life) on Mars. Sending humans with our dirty microbiome would almost certainly wipe any evidence of that, and possibly cause an extinction of an entirely separate form of life, which would be a crime even more horrible than the extinctions and genocides which we have caused so far.

    Let’s just leave Mars alone until we’ve studies it more and are certain there is no life. Colonizing the moon seems challenging enough for a couple centuries…

    source
• Djehngo@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I think it’s hard to definitely call something a bubble until it pops.

  The definition of a bubble goes something along the lines of market prices exceeding the intrinsic value of the investment they represent, which may be true here?

  If you want to read more about this the rough name for these companies was “the magnificent seven” a year or so ago when I last looked at this. A quick Google suggests represent about a third of the SNP 500’s value now and have a cape ratio (cyclicly adjusted price to earnings) of ~37 compared to 15-20 being normal.

  I can’t find a good numerical source for the correlated risk within this group, and I suspect analyzing it is very difficult. Given they all used to be a lot more diversified in the past but now a large % of their valuation is predicated on AI historical correlation analysis probably fails. But the diagram linked here suggests it’s probably bad to put all your money in these companies. (Or even a 3rd if you are in an s&p 500 index tracker 😶)

  Like, none of this definitively says this is a bubble, since if it were possible to divine that the bubble would immediately pop, but it does suggest there is a strong likelihood we are seeing a bubble.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    ~37 compared to 15-20 being normal.

    15-20 was normal for the 100 years ending 40-50 years ago. But of we look at the last 40 years or so, the CAPE has been higher, suggesting that we don’t know how what “normal” looks like going forward. More people are buying stocks than ever before due to retirement plans and poor bond yields, which pushes up the PE.

    So whether ~40 is high for a PE going forward isn’t clear. The CAPE hit ~45 in the 2000 crash, and reverted to ~20 after the crash, yet the 2008 crash only hit ~26 and crashed down to ~14 and quickly bounced back to ~20. The 2008 had little to do with CAPE and more to do with corruption in the banking industry, whereas 2000 was almost purely oversized hype in the burgeoning tech market.

    So is the normal range 20-30? Idk. Maybe 20 is actually low going forward, it’s unclear. Either way, 40 isn’t as outlandish as it was in the 2000s, and that pushed up to 45 before crashing.

    there is a strong likelihood we are seeing a bubble.

    Agreed. But if you drop out of the market and invest in other stuff, you would miss whatever the rest of the runup will do before it bursts, which could leave you worse off than someone just investing in the entire market by market cap. Ot could continue to run for 10-20 years, or it could pop this year, it’s impossible to know since it relies heavily on investors continuing to believe the hype and companies continuing to have something to back up that hype.

    source

    • Djehngo@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Valid, I got 15-20 from a Google search, but further research puts your numbers as more reasonable, I will edit the patent post.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I don’t think anyone should trust my numbers either. Here’s the CAPE data, make your own decision as to whether the CAPE ratio makes sense going forward.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      But of we look at the last 40 years or so, the CAPE has been higher, suggesting that we don’t know how what “normal” looks like going forward.

      As you listed, crashes lead to sub 20 PEs. Mag7 PEs is not representative of Russel 2000 PEs. High PEs expect high growth for long period. Reality checks usually happen, but PE’s are not universally high. Just with the oligarchs with White House guest passes.

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        crashes lead to sub 20 PEs

        The 2000 crash didn’t though, it was just over 20 at the trough. Jan 2003 was 21. That was almost as high as the peak in the 60s, and higher than the moment before Black Monday. So the market reverted to a mean that would be considered a peak just 20-30 years prior. 15 used to be a good marker for “average,” and now that’s the marker for the Great Recession.

        Crashes used to lead to sub-10s, and now they crash to 15-20. The market has fundamentally changed with 401ks and IRAs.

        source
• scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I know right? It’s not a bubble if there are transactions between the different companies in an industry. Nothing here shows that these investments are self-supporting circular, nor that all of this is propping up the economy.

  Circle != bubble

  source
• Gladaed@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Great point.

  source