Index funds won't necessarily save you. 7.5% of the S&P 500 is NVidia, 7% is Microsoft, etc. Almost 40% of the S&P 500 is in the top 10 stocks, and of the top 10, only #9 Berkshire Hathaway is not big into AI.

there's very little psychology left in most of the market.

There's computers and computer logic.

I had no idea Keynes had similar ideas, so I definitely should read his work (and economics literature in general).

I probably should generalize my thoughts though to say “expectation of economic growth” (instead of just “money printing”) seems to me necessary to yield “opaque market insanity”, as opposed to “transparent evil sanity”.

As a thought experiment, consider a (practically impossible) scenario where there is universally no expectation for long-term economic growth/contraction — regardless of whether it’s “real” or just monetary. Then by definition, a long term market simply cannot exist at all. No amount of wealth inequality can cause market insanity if there is no (long-term) market at all.

Wealth inequality in such a situation can still yield hoarding, domination, conquest, control, scams, manipulations, etc. But I wouldn’t call that “market insanity” so much as “evil sanity”.

In practice, the real impact of wealth inequality on the common people would likely be the same either way. However, without long term economic growth/inflation, the “sane evil” of the greedy wealth can no longer hide behind the veil of “market insanity”.

Money printing does directly impact inequality, via the Cantillon effect; in most cases, the printed money is put into the system in a way that disproportionately increases prices of assets that are held disproportionately by the wealthy.

> there is just nothing to invest into.

I think you have just defined gold and bitcoin to be "nothing".

Sounds about right.

A post-truth environment adds to the ickyness of the feeling: on top of the bubbles, we've got RFK Jr. deciding the fate of biotechnology companies. Having a tech bubble at the same time science is being vandalized at NIH and in universities looks pretty damn dark.

Yes, but with the “revolving door” between private financial institutions and government financial policy/regulation, there’s little real distinction anymore between the two.

Those private banks can print that money out of thin air because government allows them to. And the government officials (many formerly financial executives) allow them to because they “have to” to prevent “disastrous” private banking/financial collapse.

But if you or I wanted to play the same games to print our own money they way they do? No, that would be wrong and dangerous and illegal!

So it’s pretty clear that both government and private financial institutions are tightly coupled partners in a mostly corrupt, intentionally obfuscated shell game that primarily serves to keep money and power steadily flowing into the hands of the already wealthy and powerful.

Just look at who is actually held accountable for financial crimes. Some individual trader that finds and exploits some glitch that allows them to profit from the wealthy? Straight to jail. High ranking institutional powers (government and private) that implement often illegal schemes that continuously siphon wealth from common people into their hands? Slap on the wrist at most.

Reserve ratios have not been the major capital constraint for a very long time. Loan to deposit ratios have been. And those have stayed in normal bounds since the great financial crisis. Both bank regulators and importantly bank investors keep on top of this because they are the ones to lose the most if it gets out of wack.

The reserve requirement had to be loosened because banks became too conservative, largely because their investors were skittish about ldr.

This is a misconception afaik, yes there is no longer a literal percent reserve requirement but banks are still required to be “adequately capitalized”, the metric is just more complicated now.

Doesn't our federal government set reserve ratios? They may not be creating money, but by setting the ratio (and other limits), they at least have a strong influence on creation.

I wish I could print 400,000€ to buy a house with 40k in my account.

Another source in the last half a decade or so is digital coin "mints."

Quick look on coin market puts the total market value at ~$3 trillion. Yet that money effectively was created from nothing. It's basically money printing.

With credit cards that accept digital coins as financial sources it's also started to affect the actual markets significantly.

From the charts shown, markets have also gotten quite a bit frothier, with larger swings and spike / drops in margin, since 2020 when coin valuations really took off.

Personal view, it probably also contributes since it's less "real" from a certain perspective. Just digital numbers to wager, that don't really mean the same as mortgaging your house. "Eh, just wager like 10 or 20 digi-coins on margin." Except that's like $1-2 million these days.

> a fixer upper small house in a less desirable area

A lot of an area's desirability has to do with crime rate. Bulgaria has a homicide rate of 1.088, and the US 5.763. So what would be considered a very safe, friendly neighborhood in the US, would be average or worse in Bulgaria. In this sense, "luxury" is flipped - what Bulgarians would consider basic, would be "luxuriously safe" in the US.

This is true.

Bernays did more to end the Great Depression than Keynes, and to prevent its recurrence post-war. Sad truth.

> Hell, even if the average American stopped taking expensive vacations!

Lmfao what world do you live in where they haven't?

You are right - it's about the inequality of holding the money, not the rate at which it's printed. Money printing is relevant to the extent it mostly flows towards the already rich. If money was printed and distributed to everyone evenly it would have the opposite effect.

That can easily be explained away in that the wealth concentration was a symptom of vertically integrated hard network based implementations (railroads, logistics, shipping, extraction), and the Gold Standard may have braked some level of wealth inequality acceleration and centralization to a degree, but that the trusts and business structuring were the cause moreso than any inherent tendency toward gold as basis to full fiat.

That explains why we're seeing what we're seeing now. It's all about network monetization.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. Word "gamble" too inciting? Maybe if you'd used "much more risky investments" instead, but I'm not here to quibble about your language but to agree with you and extend what you're saying. I actually think the $10 million number is also relative to age because someone who's 30 and "merely" a millionaire can and will invest up the risk ladder as if they're a 50-year-old risking their above-$10 million capital. And the population of people who are millionaires vs decamillionaires is of course a healthy multiple so there's a lot more risk appetite than the relatively small number of decamillionaires would suggest.

As an aside I feel like there's this terrible trend where folks focus so much effort and energy worrying about whether billionaires should exist, whether they should be taxed more aggressively, etc. that we've lost the plot on just how much loot even a net worth of $10+ million is. And at the risk of me writing a too-long comment (bad habit), think of the risk appetite someone has when their decamillionaire parents pass away, and they're given, sometimes overnight, millions of extra dollars. Sure, maybe they'll buy a house, but oftentimes those funds go straight into the market. With boomers starting to leave this mortal coil and their trillions of dollars being passed down you can start to understand why the market seems disconnected from historical fundamentals.