i'm starting a new trend: ask every person that is so certain about the negative outlook how big their short position is. so how big is your short position? please let us know.
> Often someone pronounces his propositions with such confident and inflexible defiance that he seems to have entirely laid aside all concern for error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes he reveals that he is persuaded enough for one ducat but not for ten. For he would happily bet one, but at ten he suddenly becomes aware of what he had not previously noticed, namely that it is quite possible that he has erred.
But see that's exactly my point - I am invested so actually I don't go around "talking my book" but you have zero skin in the game so your opinion matters about as much as Bob down at the bar watching the game on TV.
If you're invested you have interest to say it's good regardless of reality. because if it's bad first you need to sell off to avoid being the bagholder
Yes you can say you're honest and stuff but does it mean anything if you can go broke from honesty.
you are taking your book by implying all the naysayers are secretly shorting the stock instead of having reasons to think it's empty hype. let's see how long copium lasts.
> i'm starting a new trend: ask every person that is so certain about the negative outlook how big their short position is. so how big is your short position? please let us know.
To me people with short positions likely be bending the truth. To you they are honest. Funny
There's a reason why investing must be declared in many situations. and it is because they are a conflict of interest not proof of honesty
> By definition, a "conflict of interest" occurs if, within a particular decision-making context, an individual is subject to two coexisting interests that are in direct conflict with each other ("competing interests"). This is important because under these circumstances, the decision-making process can be disrupted or compromised, affecting the integrity or reliability of the outcomes.
The decision is what to write on HN and integrity is compromised if "writing truth" is in conflict with "get richer" which can happen if you invest in a sus biz.
We can pretend you are the rare exception that speaks the truth even if it means you go broke but even then it just proves the rule
That's a dishonest argument. For a short to work, you need to be right about the direction _and_ the timing. Being right too soon amounts to being wrong, and the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Well yeah because in the end we're all dead. There will be a day when AI companies are like GE, IBM, or maybe even Intel. All innovative companies in the fullness of time stop being innovative. The question is when. It's not a bubble if it deflates in 20 years.
> market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
This is more mantra - professional shorts exist and they make money. So either you know something (in which case you'd be mum about it and just placing your bets) or you know nothing.
You can't both talk about "professional shorts" and use it as an argument against somebody who is not a financial professional. This argument is invalid because not every person who is skeptical about current AI companies' perspectives is willing or able to become a professional short just to make a point on it. One can have a perfectly valid argument and still not be a professional short based on it.
Actually, anyone with a brain can see that it's a huge and massively inflated bubble, but can also see that it's a fools game to try to time it without professional insight into the market. What we can do is make sure we're not overextended on the bubble participants, but that's about it.
No amount of hype from your side can make it a non-bubble market when OpenAI and other companies make wild and impossible to fulfill promises for infrastructure buildup that rely on vague promises of circular money lending between AI SaaS and infra companies.
> Actually, anyone with a brain can see that it's a huge and massively inflated bubble, but can also see that it's a fools game to try to time it without professional insight into the market.
"The bubble is both obvious and also completely unpredictable".
Yes, it does. You may know what there would be realignment, but you don't know where or how, and may not possess the professional knowledge and resources required to profit from it directly. The known part is general, the unknown part is specific and time-dependent.
Someone else already said: yes all companies go to zero on a timeline that includes the heat death of the universe. Your claim is about as clever as that.
No, that would only work after getting really high. You know, when somebody asks "why this thing is such and such?" and you answer "why things are at all? Maybe it's all just our imagination, dude! Maybe nothing makes sense and we are living in a simulation! Dude, just feel you mind expanding!"
But if we lay off the bong for a bit and think soberly, then no, knowing that certain economic process is not sustainable and will eventually collapse, but not being able to profit from it is not the same as saying every bubble would pop at the heat death of the universe, billions years for now. It's so not the same that the very comparison should be immediately perceived as absurd.
