> Ultimately, we found that the claim that medieval peasants worked around 150 days a year is still largely accepted as a valid estimate by academic economic historians, at least in England for a period starting around 1350 and lasting between a few decades and more than a century, depending on the methodology used to study the data.
Simon, do you write anywhere how do you manage to be so... active? Between your programming tools, blogging, job (I assume you work?) where do you find the time/energy?
Don't see how this discredits the article. Making 1M a year as an autistic person might just mean you're a good trader that requires 0 human interaction. Says nothing about anything really.
An extremely interesting paper that puts into perspective a lot of investment "knowledge" shared at nauseom almost everywhere.
> Investors have seen countless charts of US stock market performance which start in 1926 and end near the present. But US trading long predates 1926, and the foreshortened perspective that results from a focus on post-1926 data can be misleading.
> The goal is to challenge shibboleths about the expected outcomes of buy-and-hold stock market investing, and to raise questions about the expected performance of stocks versus bonds over long periods.
> Put another way, since 1928 dividends plus inflation accounted for 99.7% of the nominal wealth produced, as of 2008, by investing in stocks.
> Total return measured on the century scale presumes an investor who never needs to spend the dividends or interest received. No real investor, individual or institution, has that luxury. And there is one class of individual investor, now of growing importance within the financial planning literature as the Baby Boom generation ages, for whom the total return metric is particularly malaprop: retirees. Once portfolio accumulation ceases with retirement, portfolio income must be spent to live. Under those circumstances real price return, over short periods lasting two or three decades, becomes an important metric. By that measure, an investment in stocks has been dicey indeed.
---
Just to whet your appetite some more:
> Figure 4 [1] illuminates how much of the long-term return on stocks since 1926 has been due to sustained high inflation on the one hand, and to the favorable enhancement from re-investing dividends on the other. Under the one depiction, the portfolio returned about 9% compounded, from near the high in the Twenties to near the low in the Oughts; under the other, only about 1.5%.
> Few contemporary investors expect a multi-decade return on their stock portfolios of 1 2% per year. They have no reason to expect such poor results, because most investors have never seen a post-1926 chart of inflation-adjusted, price-only returns, and have rarely seen any charts extending back past 1896.
That's because there's this quite "sticky" situation of not every human being being the same. Nobody likes to talk about it and you get shunned or imprisoned for even thinking about it, but the world has actually groups of people with varying levels of intelligence.
I really hope so. The US has had major interests in not having this completed, and getting this up and running only just to spite them would be worth it.
A solution to this (from a non-diabetic) would maybe to always be eating a keto-like diet. It's not easy, but far easier than having to constantly juggle 100s of carb combinations.
"Diet" might even be the wrong word, more like a lifestyle.
> I continue to think Apple should have never released AirTags to the public, and should discontinue it. It's a very limited income stream, with limited use cases, and significantly increases the average person's risk of stalking.
You sure have a lot of strong opinions on what apple "should" do.
Don't like it? It's a free market. Don't buy it and if you're afraid of being stalked, check out the app they released.
I wonder how come all you people come out of the woodwork now that Apple released this thing, yet when Tile did there was no such forced concerned anywhere.