This is not green field, but as the neighbor's lawn next to mine, it may or may not be greener. Time and fertilizer will tell. Smell the dirt Spartans.
> So nobody really knows what to do about a capital glut and a demand shortage.
Sure they do. The concept of "Unlimited Wants" and Thorstein Veblen's "Pecuniary Canons of Taste" pretty much wrap up a capital glut. Spend it. Money flows somewhere. A demand shortage is not necessarily permanent (horse carriages vs automobiles withstanding)...that's one of the many reasons why the word pivot exists in YC vernacular. Everyone/everything living consumes. There are demands that are fundamental, and demands that are extraordinary. A market exists for all demands, no matter how small or how large. Demands = needs small or great. If you are selling buggy whips in the automobile age, yeah, you might have a demand shortage...so think and pivot. Absolutes have a place in extremum; an exercise left to the reader.
Troll, Google my "aphorisms" in quotes. I don't seem to come up with any results in google. I'm not a genius, I didn't come up with the concepts of "Keep some Powder dry", "Buy low, Sell high", or basic arithmetic. You offer exactly nothing in terms of "strategy". I'd love to see your Series 7 exam results.
"Always be comfortable with losing what you invested, because you might lose it." - Google it.
Succinct. Exactly. Dollar Cost Averaging. For buys and when buying call options or selling puts, I increase commitment while maintaining the core strategy. Highs and lows are arbitrary in an irrational market. Profits can be increased if buying at "relative" lows or selling at "relative" highs. If a stock that trades at its highest yet value of $100/share falls to $80/share over a week because of a lawsuit claim or other similar construct, but the company is otherwise outperforming, that may be a buying opp (it may be a total loss, but that differential is risk/opportunity). That stock, at $80/share is at a "relative" low as compared to its high of $100. That is what I meant by low and high. Perfect maximization is possible, though almost always unlikely. Which is why your DCA strategy should outperform (depending on your investment choices, of course).
Un-invested money can still earn interest or be put into other profitable, but less risky vehicles. I do not know any professional traders or investors that put 100% of their money for investments in one trade.
>I get it now, you're just a random spouting aphorisms you've read.
Yeah, those aphorisms, with their pathetic grains of truth, what a fool I am.
So long as you don't wait forever. The market bottom of any exchange or stock is $0.00. The market, will likely never actually "bottom out". Look into DCA Dollar Cost Averaging. I personally, and professionally, manage DCA strategies with applying additional infusions during obvious lows (example: markets are down 10% in a given period). The bottom of a cycle can undulate "sideways" a bit over a period of weeks, months, years, decades with few discernible entry or exit points. Sometimes after an "event" occurs, the market/stock jumps XX% and opportunities may not occur again in the near future (goes sideways at new level). I note sideways markets/stocks and calculate the risk/reward if I deem it an opportune time. In most markets stocks don't go sideways forever.
The logic of this plan is basic and has stood the test of time in any multi-party market. You can save and spend at the same time, I do it all of the time, it's called budgeting. You are mired in theoretical perfection, absolutism, and a misunderstanding of how to profit from investing or trading. On the Street this "plan" is referred to as "Keeping the Powder dry". You don't [rationally] blow the whole keg of powder on one trade. If I have $10k to invest, I might only invest ("fire", "blow", "shoot" )$2k at a current market/stock low and keep the rest "dry". What is your investment strategy? Invest at the market/stock highs?
According to...people that have actually invested. Some positions lose money, some make money, but you'll never know what it's like until you get off the bench and put some skin in the game. Always be comfortable with losing what you invested, because you might lose it. Always be comfortable with taking a profit, because you might lose it.
Who cares if the investment doesn't maximize potential profit? If someone invests $50 and gets $100 in return, that's great. If someone else invests $50 and gets $99.42 in return, that's great too, and who cares if someone made more 'profit' from buying and holding an imaginary financial instrument? The point is: buy "lower", sell "higher" is close enough to buy at the lowest point and sell at the highest point. But other factors come into play on why someone would sell at any time. Theoretically, ceteris paribus mutatis mutandis, if you invest in some company that happens to survive a thousand years into the future and has an annual average ROR of 7%, you should never sell it, even after your death if you want to maximize profit...buy low-ish, sell high-ish as convenient and with common sense. Theoretical perfectly maximized trades should not be the concern of the investor. Count dollars instead of pennies.
The problem you refer to is formally known as "Risk" aka Risk Capital.
Stop thinking for "a lot of people"..you're doing it wrong. I speak Spanish, Hombre. I think you are over-sensitive and distracted...it's an article about Taco Bell. The author was speaking to himself, aka self talk...so you posit he was being rude...to himself. If you and like-minded individuals consider "manned up" rude...you are either over-thinking, trying to be the thought-police, are over-sensitive, or have never been in a situation where you manned-up. Rude? Seriously.
Thank the stars society has someone like you to interpret someone else's words and translate to all languages censoring and removing all ambiguity.
skybrian, not everyone thinks about pussy the way you or some others do. Pussy = scared cat or uncertain cat. Insert the word vagina into the author's sentence and see if he meant he took the easy way like a prolapsed vagina. Over-sensitive, usually wrong, pussy.
Is it possible that the author's use of "manned up" concerns growth and ascension, i.e. boy -> man? There is nothing wrong with being a man, some boys in this society should try it some time.
Example, from my father when I was a boy: "Son, sometimes you'll be in situations where you just need to man up and go through it alone. I won't be there, your Mother won't be there. It will be just you and any wisdom you may have."
This is not green field, but as the neighbor's lawn next to mine, it may or may not be greener. Time and fertilizer will tell. Smell the dirt Spartans.