I did not express my point accurately. You did not say, for example, in 1996, that there was a bubble in 1996 (or if you did, I certainly did not hear you say that because, as you say, you were not around in 1996 and neither was I). You did say, in 2000-2001-2002-2003-2004, that there was a bubble in 1996-1997-1998-1999-2000-2001-2002-2003 and that there is a bubble in 2004.
And you're wrong. There is no bubble. And there is no crash.
There was a tech bubble in a few stocks in 1999-2000, but your own experience in SoftBank should have made it crystal clear to you what was going on. People like you piled onto SoftBank, and were followed by people with less intelligence and common sense than little old ladies playing mah-jongg.
And there was too much buildup in industries that couldn't use it, like cell phones. That's a completely different issue, happens all the time with new technologies. They did coincide in time and place, and so did the day-trading phenomenon, which made it easier for crazy gamblers to indulge in their vice.
I am disappointed in your inability to accurately comprehend the macroeconomy. After reading your responses, I recognize that I am being too demanding. You're a trader at best, and a gambler at worst, so I shouldn't expect you to see past your own nose.
I find those limitations boring and frustrating, but that's my problem, not yours.
Finally, yes, I did get back into the market last year, but I've resolved to never talk about specific investments on SI. I am not a trader, nor a gambler, don't need or want the chatter.
There may be a recession in the future - in fact, it's inevitable that at some point in the future, there will be a recession. They come and go. If you play on the shore, you'll feel the waves. If you're out on the ocean, you won't even notice it.
I don't want you to stop posting. I want you to recognize your limitations so that you don't lead others astray. |
