Naw, Larry, I don't think you understand the article at all. Sorry to be so blunt. I'm curious why you're fixated with this particular linkage.
When I said the article was nonsense, I was disagreeing with Huber's conclusion that financial instability and bankruptcies are the basis of increased wealth for the individual investor (assuming he is talking about the average investor, and not a small group of elite superinvestors).
I think you totally missed the point of the article:
We know that free markets grow, on average, decade after decade, we know in general terms why, and it is fairly safe to assume that capitalist growth will continue. The important new factor may be that turbulence is destined to keep growing as well. The tide will keep on rising, but the waves and foam will keep on rising, too.
You may want to try rereading the article instead of going off of those constant random walks of yours, because if you accept the central thesis of the article that volatility will increase as more economies become freer then doesn't that require you to adjust or perish?
No matter the asset class (financial assets or hard assets), you have three basic stances: going long, going short, or doing nothing.
What will it be, Larry?
Regards,
Gus |
