If you think this started with Silicon Valley that’s a mistake
In Canada at least you can have the funds pulled from the market and put in cash hold until you are comfortable with the market for RRSP/RESP.
Some banks will try to tell you you cannot do this or will charge you $100/month to keep it in cash. If they do, go to another institution and get it moved there. Many credit unions offer the same accounts with zero charges for holding cash.
my fellow human, that strat may not be enought
Eh? Term deposits/GIC savings vehicles generally just generate interest for the depositor, without fees involved. Demand accounts like chequing accounts / payment oriented accounts, will sometimes have a fee, which will typically get waived if the amount in that account exceeds a certain value (typically around $1000-1500). Been that way forever at CUs. It’s generally because they can use that capital to fund loans, more confidently, if the money’s locked in to a term deposit for a set period – in a simple small CU setup, they’re essentially taking all those deposits, pooling them together to help people buy homes, and charging the borrowers enough to pay both the deposit interest and the CUs operating costs. There’s very little ‘risk’, given that any loan is secured by property, with a loan to value ratio of around 75-80% at the high end – something regulators seem oblivious to at times in Canada, as many cripple industry without cause. They’re actively working to kill small CUs, while also whining federally about a lack of financial industry competition.
But back on topic, I think the posters comment is more trying to imply that all assets/money is a bubble. I’m not really sure why. But whether you have money in property/assets, or money sitting in an account, it’s part of “the entire financial system” that the poster says is a giant bubble.
I’m not a financial expert here, so some of the things you hit on in your reply I am not familiar with. I’ve never used GICs. RRSPs however can be invested, or sit in cash non-invested. Its the same account type either way.
Some, like BMO Investorline, will charge for it to sit in cash (Investorline charges you $100/month) - BMO Smartfolio won’t let you put things in cash, they say they aren’t setup for that.
I ended up moving my RRSP to an RRSP with my credit union. Its getting moved to an RRSP but it will sit in cash hold, uninvested, until such time as I am ready to put it back into the market. I did this before the 2020 dip as well. You can avoid the bubble popping this way. It doesn’t need to stay on the market.
So to the OPs broader point, you’re still participating in the broader financial system/market – the financial system doesn’t “just” refer to items placed on the stock market, it includes any money stored in a financial institution, and ultimately even ‘money’ itself. The OPs position sounds a lot more like a libertarian / anarchist take, stating that all ‘money’ is essentially a bubble with imaginary value. I imagine this sort of mindset is increasingly on the minds of people, Americans in particular, as international trade starts to flounder – the value of the US dollar is, in some circles, starting to cause concern. I think there was a news piece from one of their central bankers a couple days ago, commenting that the value of the American dollar is down 10% against other currencies this year, so if your net worth hasn’t gone up by 11% you’ve taken a loss. Currency values are arguably based on difficult to quantify things – it can be viewed as bubble-like at a fairly fundamental level.
For the RRSP item, typically banks/CUs provide parent accounts and sub accounts, in my experience. So, for example, you can have an RRSP account at a CU which has just cash sitting in it, or that RRSP can have a sub-account Term deposit where the cash is locked in for 5 years and earns 2-4% per annum in interest (essentially just keeping up with inflation) – or an RRSP parent account with a trading sub account. Terms have lower return than the market, in general, but less risk. I’ve personally tended to split my savings between longer Terms in the RRSP for long term retirement needs, shorter more numerous Term Deposits in non-RRSPs that I can cash in for emergencies (taking a small hit if I break the term early), and a Market investment account I handle through my TFSA for now – not really sure if that’s a good approach, but it spreads the risk profiles around, and ensures that I have a baseline of emergency funds available.
In terms of interest rates / fees, if money is locked in for a longer period FIs generally don’t charge fees, and instead you earn a higher interest rate. The BMO Investonline example, I would guess, is a result of that money getting booked differently in terms of their ability to leverage it for lending, and/or it’s shunted over to a BMO subsidiary entity setup to specifically handle market actions, which is subject to different standards/fee structures. I’ve worked at banks/CUs that did that sort of thing for departments like their auto-leasing programs – which was fascinating, as the CU actually had policies in place not to lease cars to their regular financial members, because they were totally fleecing the auto side and knew it (which was deemed ‘ok’, so long as those people aren’t members/can’t vote in elections). There were also likely larger regulatory hurdles if they were to try and cross sell that sort of product.
But the long and short of all this, is basically just … if you’re storing a pile of money in a bank/CU, stick it in a term deposit so that it at least keeps up with inflation / earns you interest, rather than costs you in fees. As an added benefit, moving those funds into a non-demand account makes them a lot more difficult for scammers to get at – because the money isn’t available “on demand”.
Though again, if I’ve interpreted the Ops sentiment correctly, none of this matters from their POV, as it’s all just a house of cards.
Not great
The scary part of this one is that previously, we had administrations that, while still being right-of-center (yes ML, I know), had at least enough sense to prop things up well enough to recover.
I don’t have faith that the fascist goons will take any steps to properly protect anything (regardless of whether its the ideal system or not) and just let everything fall apart.
Considering all the damage just seems to be blatant wrecker shit trump is doing as “revenge” for who knows what, probably having his pedo time taken away by the imperial core (and under his watch too) I think he wants this place to burn and cooking us all is his sick revenge fetish at this point.
Fucking prick
The problem is that they kept propping things up and mitigating losses from those with wealth, i.e. protecting boomers.
Recessions hurt, but they are historically a natural method of wealth redistribution. In a recession, people with stuff lose much more than the people without stuff, and then on the way back out the people without stuff now have a better chance to capture some of that wealth.
Same for war. Historically speaking.
Kind of reminds me of how our 100 year long strategy of putting out all forest fires as soon as the first spark erupts, has lead to large buildups of brush and growth, that under normal circumstances would have been burnt back, sparing the large trees and forest as A whole… but now provides so much fuel, that any fire now is not only an unstoppable force, it also kills any and every thing leaving the forests irrecoverable.
The scary part of this one is that previously, we had administrations that, while still being right-of-center (yes ML, I know), had at least enough sense to prop things up well enough to recover.
I’ll admit I haven’t cataloged all financial crises in American history, but I can’t think of any right-of-center administrations that have cleaned up a things for a recovery. Perhaps only exception might be the Oil Crisis under Carter, and the recovery under Reagan. Great depression, Black Monday, Great Recession, COVID recession, all happened under right-of-center Presidents and recovered under left-of-center Presidents.
You’re misreading them, the DNC is at most right of center. The left begins at socialism.
The left begins at socialism.
If you’re talking about the political spectrum I would think the extreme far left would begin at anarchism and eventually graduate to socialism as you move farther right.
Anarchism and Marxism are generally not any more or less “left.” When I say the left begins at socialism, I mean to be considered left wing, you must be at least socialist.
What a stupid fucking thing to say. Socialism changes with nationality if you were half as capable as you delude yourself into thinking you are, the difference would be your catalyst.
.world How does this keep happening? Do they
require proof of recent brain injuries to let people registeronly allow adult religious converts on that instance, or do they just only advertise on 4chan and Reddit?Edit: Sorry comrade. Genuinely. The coffee and covfefe induced hyperbole got me doing microaggressions out here.
I agree with the sentiment, but I’d tone down the ableism.
Lemmy.world is trying to replicate Reddit, though, in culture. It took off during the API thing, rather than a subreddit banning like r/TheDeprogram or r/Chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, etc.
Some of us are normal…
Well, normal for lemmy standards
No he’s right. There are no politicians with any real power in North America who are anywhere close to left. Dems are right and Reps are fascist. It’s right and super-right in the US. Canada isn’t doing any better.
Removed by mod
Go have your conversation in private if you don’t want public comments on it.
And wash up before you offer me your body, cupcake.
As I explained to you elsewhere:
The only reason dicksucking is usable as a pejorative is to draw on historic sexism and homophobia, and telling someone to suck your dick draws on that social trauma. Telling someone to give you a haircut, for example, is still a service but doesn’t have that social trauma to make it a pejorative, and thus it doesn’t hit like one.
It’s basically drawing on SA to be used as an insult. If you don’t think telling someone to suck your dick is drawing on historic bigotry towards groups that traditionally do that, then I’d like to know why you think it works as an insult.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What do you mean by saying “socialism changes with nationality?”
Removed by mod
How does socialism “change” by “nationality?”
Removed by mod
If you live long enough, you’ve been through a number of bubbles. For me thats:
- Black Monday (1987)
- Dot com bubble (2000) which also bled into 9/11 economics impacts
- Great Recession (2008)
- COVID (2020)
The next bubble will just be another. Economy will slow, value of most assets will drop. Jobs will be lost, homes foreclosed on…and then the recovery will begin again. We’ll look in the mirror shocked we survived it then in a few years we’ll completely forget about it and be terrified of the next bubble.
So, prepare by living within you means, take care of yourself and your loved ones, and just be ready to weather the next storm. We’ll get through that one too.
Covid wasn’t a “bubble”.
Or if it was, it was all the over investment in entertainment and productivity tools. In which case, that popped around 2023 when everything got cancelled and RTO layoffs started.
While the rich get richer and more people get poorer.
You have to take that into consideration in your planning. Don’t go full prepper but do diversify your holdings. That’s just basic anyway.
Why wpuld anyone ever be a god damned prepped that sounds like the most miserable life imaginable. You are signing up to be Salad Fingers fuck that shit
I don’t know about full on prepper, but diversifying into physical metal, crypto, real estate, stocks, bonds/treasuries etc is undoubtedly wise.
Yeah you don’t have to go full prepper but some of it just comes under common sense emergency stuff I think. Like where we live we have a reasonably sized garden so we grow stuff to eat, and have a big rain barrel to collect water. Normally that’s just used to water the plants but you could presumably boil it up and make it potable if you really needed to. Between that and just having a reasonable amount of dry food in the pantry it’s probably enough to see us through for at least a week or two if anything serious happened.
conversely, it’s a bad idea to not keep emergency preparedness supplies like ≥3 L water per household occupant, dried food (beans etc., rotated regularly), a first aid kit, etc.
be safe frens
edit: I’m an idiot American and forgot i have gallon water jugs not 1 L 🤦♀️
One liter?
That’s like, barely enough for a brief hike. Minimum 20 liters a head.
i am not smart. see edit 🥴
1L cyanide water before they put you in the Superdome
Yeah, having been in a surprise proper emergency (no power, water, limited roads, cell service, etc for over a week) having some emergency supplies and a radio (if you have a car, AM/FM radio in that is great) completely changes things
Yeah we’re kind of remote and we once went for I think 9 days without power after a big weather event. Having a radio and a little gas camping stove were lifesavers. Also get lots of candles and books, one of my main memories of that time is how boring it was lol.
Next thing I want to do is get solar-ed up so we can just flip that on for an hour or two if needed. The previous power cut was years ago when a solar setup wasn’t really feasible.
You can be sure that the govt will treat every single disaster like Katrina and the trucks will grow large enough to mow down 20 kida at once
god bless murrica 😑
FootbaIl
I don’t expect to live long enough to retire. Any hope that I’d eventually be able to retire and enjoy life for a change went out the window in 2008 when the housing bubble popped.
same here and my doctor confirmed it not too long ago; it’s a little bit freeing knowing that i don’t have to put any effort into planning from my elderly years.
How so?
There is a bubble every decade. When you are saving over 40 years or more a single year dip every 10 years is fine.
Don’t sell in the dip, buy in the dip.
Buy high, sell low 😎
Ah, yes, the WallStreetBets approach.
Capitalism cannot last forever, though. With imperialism dying, crashes are going to get harder, to outright ending capitalism.
Don’t sell in the dip, buy in the dip.
What would happen if everyone did this? Can everyone do this, even theoretically?
This is effectively impossible. Time in the market beats trying to time the market because it is hard to identify the dip until you have already exited it.
Answering the can everyone do this question, the dip usually implies that everyone cannot do this.
The dip implies a drop in demand that is causing prices to dip.
Just as I suspected. The economic system is built on some people losing and some people winning.
That’s basic economic theory to prices. For prices to down in an elastic market, either supply needs to increase or demand needs to decrease.
Or a breakthrough in production, lowering labor-time and overall input costs, though some people try to lump that into “supply.”
How would that not be part of supply? If productivity doubles and is rolled out across the board, wouldn’t supply double as well? I mean, the total work being done would probably drop such that the supply isn’t actually doubled, but if supply was the constraint before then wouldn’t it settle somewhere between that doubled amount and the original, directly translating that increased productivity into increased supply?
Essentially, supply and demand meet each other, but that doesn’t explain prices alone, why a chair sells for 100 USD while a car sells for 50,000 USD. What matters is the difference in resources needed to devote to create one, ie labor time and raw materials, as well as the extent to which machinery, ancillary materials, semi-finished goods, etc are used up.
For a car, you use up far more of these than for a chair. A sudden influx of cars, say, by discovering a hidden trove, or a sudden decrease, ie a warehouse exploded, will have temporary distortions on price. However, this central, “natural price” is what supply and demand press towards over time.
Further, since raw materials exist naturally, the difference in their value is driven by the labor required to extract them, refine them, etc. Each step in the process makes it more valuable, unless supply is kept artificially low or high. Further still, these are averages. If someone spends a lot of time making an equivalent chair, they aren’t going to be able to take it to market for a higher price.
If everyone bought the dip, the dip would end. Stock prices are only loosely tied to reality. They are more strongly tied to the perception that a stock’s price will increase. So, if people started pouring money into stocks (or other assets) the price of those stocks would naturally rise as they become more scarce and sellers demand a higher price for them. Assuming the reasons for the dip remain, it would just result in the inflation of another bubble.
Take a look back at the whole GameStop (GME) rollercoster. Large investors expected the stock to crater and began taking short positions. Retail investors saw the dip this was causing and bought the stock in droves, forcing the price up beyond anything it had any business being. Eventually, that bubble popped and the stock has settled to a more reasonable (if still higher) level.
The whole system is built on winners and losers. It’s very frustrating to me.
An economy is really just a way to distribute finite resources in a world with infinite wants. Even the most egalitarian of systems is going to require deciding who gets something and who doesn’t (winner and losers). It’s perfectly valid to be frustrated by being on the “doesn’t” end of that equation. And we (US and other Western Democracies) could certainly do a lot more to shift some of the resources away from the few who are hording a lot of them, even without a radical “tear the system down” approach. The difficulty is the political will to do so.
Unfortunately, mustering political will for a collective good, which may come with some individual losses can be a tough sell. Especially when large parts of a population are comfortable. Not only do you have to convince people that the collective good is an overall good for them, you also have to convince them that the individual losses either won’t effect them or will be mitigated by the upsides of the collective good. And given peoples’ tendency to over emphasize the short term risks over the long term risks, this can be especially hard. But, that doesn’t mean you should give up, just that you need to sharpen your arguments and find ways to convince more people that things can be better for them, if they are willing to take that step.
The essential factor is that the imperialist countries, ie the US, EU, etc, leverage their financial and millitary domination of the global south to expropriate large sums of wealth. These spoils are used to bribe the working class into passivity. Imperialism, however, is self-defeating, and the rate of profit is lowering while there aren’t really new markets to plunder anymore. This causes crisis.
It’s not particularly outlandish to orient the economy around collectivized production and distribution based on need, rather than profit. Socialist countries already exist, and achieve good results compared to peer countries. They require working class organization, which is a difficult but possible process.
Imperialism, however, is self-defeating, and the rate of profit is lowering while there aren’t really new markets to plunder anymore. This causes crisis.
Potentially yes, but empires can last for hundreds or thousands of years. Democracy is relatively young by comparison, and we’re already seeing large cracks in it in the USA, one of the older democracies.
The point being: humanity hasn’t yet found a long term stable form of government.
It’s not particularly outlandish to orient the economy around collectivized production and distribution based on need, rather than profit. Socialist countries already exist, and achieve good results compared to peer countries. They require working class organization, which is a difficult but possible process.
I’m interested in your perspective on this. Which socialist country are you using as an example of what you describe above?
The US is really only democratic for the capitalist class, the wealthy capital owners whose primary income originates from capital ownership. The US isn’t seeing cracks in democracy, but in the entire system of financial plunder that keeps it going. Capitalists in the US, facing internal market saturation and steadily falling rates of profit, have had to expand outward, leveraging a strong overseas millitary to keep the global south under their thumb.
The US Empire wasn’t the first, it’s merely the largest. Britain, France, and Germany have all reached this stage of Capitalism. World War I left them debt-ridden to the US, and World War II flipped the script, with the US flooding the world with dollars, later destroying the gold standard, leveraging its own debt to essentially tax the entire world. The entire west, or the “global north,” gains from this system with the US as the “top dog,” and is falling down with it.
In the modern era, however, the sheer unsustainability of that system is choking itself. Manufacturing has been hollowed out and is all handled overseas, and countries in the global south are throwing off the west in favor of more favorable relations with China. The rate of profit is falling, and overconsumption as the US Empire’s strongest card to keep demand up is faltering due to this. It’s a house of cards.
As for socialism, the easiest answer is the PRC. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, governing the large firms and key industries, enabling them to plan for the future and actually meet their targets. Market mechanics are used primarily to make central planning more efficient. This century is going to be marked by China’s undisputed rise. As they continue to develop, market mechanics will continue to be phased out:
Other countries, like Cuba, manage to maintain higher quality of life metrics despite being under intense embargo than peer countries. The USSR had, in its time, the most rapid improvements in economic growth and quality of life in history. None of these countries have been perfect utopias, or anything, but all have surpassed the inherent unsustainability of capitalism.
If you want further reading, Michael Hudson’s Super Imperialism is a pretty good book on how the US Empire rose in the first place, as well as how it can’t continue forever, and we are merely observing its dying phase.
It isn’t about “discovering” new systems. Capitalism was not invented, it emerged from mercantilism and early industrial manufacturing within the boundaries of feudalism. It was never a choice to adopt it, it arose naturally as it subsumed everything else, extending the domain of private property. History is not progressed by people randomly discovering new ideas, but is a gradual material process, and the ideas that rise and fall are secondary to that and support that process. Liberalism arose because of capitalism’s rise and need for ideological justification.
If you buy in the dip, that means you have extra money that’s not invested.
If you have extra money not invested cause you’re waiting for a dip, then you’re not getting investment returns from the very long period of time we’re not in a dip.
Even if you could predict the future, and determine when the bottom of a dip is so you could put all your money in, you’re still going to come out worse than if you just invested in the first place.
If no one sold in the dip for you to buy would there even be a dip?
Exactly.
I’m about 6ish years away from retirement (the goal is Dec 31 2031). I’ve been doing a lot of work in stock markets as a result of preparing for it. The thing with the stock market is you only lose money when you sell. If a bubble pops, but you don’t sell and you keep it in there, you will eventually make your money back and recover. Diversifying your portfolio also helps, if the housing bubble pops, the entertainment sector will likely grow because people need escapism. The AI bubble is huge right now and when that pops it will be worse than the dot com bubble, even though that bubble popped, websites are still around and that industry is larger today than it has ever been. Like websites AI is here to stay, and will eventually become larger than it is right now. It’s just time, wait it out and it will normalize.
I mean, if you have stock in like blockbuster you’re losing money there too.
I really hate how we all lived through a whole dark age and three supposed end-of-days before 30. Can’t we get a break?
I guess This is my fault team. I wished for 2012 to not be the end. Stupid monkey paw!
The western economy is a boom and bust cycle, most often driven by US loosening of economic controls. I’m sure the Chinese property bubble will burst too and then we have to deal with that one too.
How I long for social democratic, Nordic style government everywhere.
Nordic retirement funds famously don’t invest in shitty companies or housing property… directly. In Nordic countries.
They do own a sizeable chunk of middleman and own a lot of empty estates as well as renting agencies, e.g. in London UK, Gdansk Poland (and I forgot all other places)
I’ve got at minimum 25 year until I’m of that age, if the stock market and capitalism are still around controlling the world by then well I won’t be sticking around for more misery. I ain’t having kids so easy for me to stop participating all together when I’m old and tired
