People often note, like another comment here notes:
> since 1960 there has been a US economic recession once every 5 to 10 years. The last one ended in 2009, 9 years ago
This is an interesting line of thinking, but I think it's a mistake. We can use this fact itself and circumscribe some meta-thinking around it. Put the same fact another way, this is arguing that the 1960's started a brand new paradigm that was materially different from the 1950's-before.
For all we know, the 2020's+ will repeat the past (in a way) and usher in a paradigm different from the 1960's! No more recessions every 5-10 years.
So:
* Maybe from now on there will be a recession every 20 years
* Or Fed manipulation will get "so good" that we won't have large recessions
* Or capital's other options for returns (real estate, emerging markets, etc) will look bad-ish for the next 10 years and continue to prop up the stock market because its the only good outlet for extra cash for a decade or three
I could see any of these being plausible. I think leaning on the past is a bit of a mistake. Personally, I think the third one is quite possibly the case. Other non-stock-market options simply do not look as attractive as they used to, relatively.
The future will look very different from the past, as Thiel says.
> since 1960 there has been a US economic recession once every 5 to 10 years. The last one ended in 2009, 9 years ago
This is an interesting line of thinking, but I think it's a mistake. We can use this fact itself and circumscribe some meta-thinking around it. Put the same fact another way, this is arguing that the 1960's started a brand new paradigm that was materially different from the 1950's-before.
For all we know, the 2020's+ will repeat the past (in a way) and usher in a paradigm different from the 1960's! No more recessions every 5-10 years.
So:
* Maybe from now on there will be a recession every 20 years
* Or Fed manipulation will get "so good" that we won't have large recessions
* Or capital's other options for returns (real estate, emerging markets, etc) will look bad-ish for the next 10 years and continue to prop up the stock market because its the only good outlet for extra cash for a decade or three
I could see any of these being plausible. I think leaning on the past is a bit of a mistake. Personally, I think the third one is quite possibly the case. Other non-stock-market options simply do not look as attractive as they used to, relatively.
The future will look very different from the past, as Thiel says.