It remains to be seen what's going to happen over the next few decades. It's entirely possible that it'll all get wiped out (the substantial gains, not all value).

While the market was a very good bet for the last 50yrs, its not a guarantee.

Especially in the current climate you should be fully aware that it's significantly more risky to start investing today vs 10 yrs ago.

(Riskier doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea. It should just be a conscious decision under the acknowledgement that the upward trajectory is not certain. Especially in current political climate - and that "hodl"-ing doesn't necessarily mean you'll eventually get back what you invested, if a downturn manifests)

▲

skeeter2020 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>> Especially in the current climate you should be fully aware that it's significantly more risky to start investing today vs 10 yrs ago.

First, I don't think this absolute statement is true; I think you need to look at it from the alternatives perspective. If not investing then what? bury gold? spend it all?

Second, are we at a much riskier time than past history, both short & long term? I made significant contributions in 2014, saw 30%+ wiped out within 6 months and seen it all come back and more with the power of long timeframes.

Third, investment can take a lot of forms, not just today's hot tech stocks. I won't get into it beyond the standard think long term and avoid leverage, which seems to be completely inline with start early; start now.

▲

ashleyn 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your money has to go somewhere or it will rot to inflation. If you're ultrabearish on stocks, snap up bonds. If you're bearish on stocks and bonds alike, snap up gold. Either way, bare minimum of what to do with your money long term is to preserve its value across inflation.

But really I would recommend nonetheless staying the course with investment advice on a stocks/bonds balance relative to your age. Increasingly, the economy distributes not through labour but through capital and holding stocks is essential even with their inherent risks. Even in light of that CNN article about meme stock and crypto investors having the last laugh over the past decade, indices of ordinary large-cap stocks bring you exposure to these things.

▲

matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Your money has to go somewhere or it will rot to inflation.

Inflation is mainly created by this act of "putting your money somewhere". For most people, this "somewhere" means loans. Money is being loaned out to people, spent, deposited back into the bank, and loaned out again, on and on it goes until $1,000 turns into $100,000 in circulation, not a cent of it real until all loans are paid back.

▲

carllerche 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You are very confidently incorrect. So incorrect, it is hard to even start correcting you.

* Inflation is not caused by "putting your money somewhere" What on earth. * At a high level, inflation is caused by either "too much money chasing too few goods" and/or the cost of producing the goods rising. Money supply can increase without causing inflation if the supply of goods can also increase. In short, the supply of money can increase without causing inflation if productivity rises to match it. * Most people do not "put money" in loans what are you even talking about there? * Bank loans do not automatically increase the supply of money. When a loan is taken out, it is (mostly) deposited to another bank, resulting in a net-zero change in money. Increasing the supply of money requires the federal reserve to take steps.

	▲	matheusmoreira 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> In short, the supply of money can increase without causing inflation if productivity rises to match it. You're actually agreeing with me. Money supply must be backed up by real wealth and production. That's not how things work in current times. We have nearly zero interest rates, and currencies are backed up by literally nothing. > Most people do not "put money" in loans what are you even talking about there? Fractional reserve banking. Banks loan out the cash you deposit. They "efficiently allocate" the money in their custody. > Inflation is not caused by "putting your money somewhere" What on earth. It absolutely is. Banks can easily turn thousands of dollars into hundreds of thousands of dollars by repeatedly loaning out the exact same dollars numerous times. It's some kind of society wide financial call stack. Too many defaults and everything starts unwinding. > Bank loans do not automatically increase the supply of money. Obviously they do. Imagine you deposit $100 at your bank. It takes your $100 and loans out $90 of it to someone else. There are now $190 dollars in circulation. Whoever took the loan goes off and spends it. Eventually it gets deposited back into a bank. Then the bank loans out $81 out of that $90. There are now $271 dollars in circulation. And it keeps going. You can inflate bitcoin via this algorithm. > When a loan is taken out, it is (mostly) deposited to another bank Irrelevant. Banks form interconnected systems. They all settle debts and accounts with each other. > Increasing the supply of money requires the federal reserve to take steps. The physical supply of money is irrelevant. It contributes only a small fraction of the circulating money supply. Money is numbers in bank databases now. They could run the money printers 24/7 and they'd never even come close to catching up to the inflation caused by banks.

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

xboxnolifes 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There is never a guarantee, but all I can say is that there have been people claiming we're in a bubble for over a decade now. Maybe we are, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be investing instead of spending all of your money.