i remember about 5 years ago i was told to invest in nvidia stocks, and i looked at the stock price and it was like, 300 dollars or so, so i didnt buy any
Now i am looking at the stock price, it was only 4 bux 5 years ago… so weird. its like im in a simulation or alternate dimension or something…
Relax. You’ve experienced a quantum time leap through space-time foam and are inhabiting the two world’s simultaneously. One world in which the stock didn’t do so good and Ecmandu doesn’t have a girlfriend, and another in which it did and Ecmandu gets the girl.
Perhaps your memory is in error?
…or it could be the Mandela effect
lol jk
my other theory is somebody is time travelling and changing the stocks to get rich
Or just incredibly accurate predictive software.
Are there any 5-years-old print outs of NVIDIA & other stocks that show it was $300 five years ago?
That is one problem potentially with going digital. No paper trail.
I like: https://youtube.com/shorts/7vGl2-tQeF0?feature=shared
I like 2: https://youtube.com/shorts/9IG5hiiA9LI?feature=shared
I’ve heard that camera photos can prove/disprove the mandela thing but I believe that some dimensional alterations could change the recordings as well
Perhaps that’s what’s going on in people’s brains? Maybe (said tongue-in-cheek, read with raised brow) nothing in history has changed, and the tech is just effing with people’s memories? Seems a more plausible alternative. But memory can do that all by itself without the interference of tech.
Most likely someone was trying to scam you into paying them a lot of money for cheap stock.
I don’t know. There was this movie a while back. I don’t remember the details.
There was a stock split, the stock is higher in market cap than it was five years ago but because of the split the price is now 120ish. But the market cap is what really matters. The number of shares available increased So people who owned the stock at the time of the split received additional shares to make up for the price decrease. The stock would be around $1200 a share right now if it didn’t split… it was a 10 for 1 split.
If you say so, boss.
More info if you’re interested:
All stonks are weird right now, the markets having been inflated with trillions of dollars of printed money over the last 15 years (post-housing crisis). Most of it is over-valued and we may experience a melt-up before the correction occurs.
Anyone else notice how treasuries recently un-inverted after the longest period of inversion in history? Historically that means we have 6-18 months before the recession hits. Given the leverage in the system already and the length of time rates were inverted, this might be a bad one.
But don’t worry, the government cares about you and will step in to save the day by printing trillions and trillions more monopoly money to keep everything going. Especially since they learned the lesson that this can be done and the inflation consequences can be hidden for many years, longer than the span of a presidential term or the term of a fed chairman.
Even mainstream financial news has been noticing and writing about the weirdness of the ways markets are moving right now. They can’t really explain it, because they don’t want to explain it. They are high on hopium like all stonk market investors are. The collective delusion. How long before reality sets in?
After the great crash in 1929 it took 25 years for stonks to get back to their former level pre-crash. That’s a long time to wait in the red just to break even. Who knows if Nvidia over-valuation and market weirdness is signaling something similar or not. The AI hype is really strong right now, and a lot of it is actually promising but still has yet to materialize in real dollar gain terms. A recession or financial collapse of the dollar could stall out a rising progress curve of AI incorporation into the economy more broadly, unless they can get prices way down before it happens.
Lol…
We must move away from the concept of “financial gains” as a society.
We must still have a “money” society, a transactional society.
There must be UBI.
I will explain, because what I said may sound slightly contradictory… The problem of a “financial gains” type of society, is, for example, when you have a society about “financial gains”, what it means is more bullshit jobs, spam of advertisements, companies making consumer products that nobody wants or needs, planned obsolescence products, etc. It results in a lot of waste an inefficiency.
That being said, you cannot transition to a “no money” society, it is fiction, you need some kind of way to quantify transactions, otherwise someone would just walk into a store and ask the clerk to give them everything in the store one day.
Currently, Ai does not function in the economy directly (except maybe some niche things like stock trader ai…) but the economy is more and more automated. Like shipping crate organizers at the docks are 99% automated by non LLM algorithms. According to online websites, supposedly automation is “increasing” the amount of human jobs, but it sounds like bs to me.
Eventually automation will take most jobs. Right now, Ai isn’t reliable enough to take jobs. It is predicted that 15-25 years from now Ai will take most of the programmer and tech jobs. It could be, that, like typical humans, people will wait till the last second until the very last minute and then demand UBI reactively instead of proactively, after they ran out of money already.
I still feel that Ai is effecting the economy, by increasing the intelligence of humans drastically, which does have an effect on the economy, but is less easy to quantify with surveys.
Two things here. Yes the over-financialization of the western economy is bad. We should move away from this, but how?
Also, I disagree with UBI. This is not Star Trek, and even if it were there would be no need for UBI anyway because everything we need can be replicated into existence for virtually zero energy cost. In a world like ours, scarcity and supply/demand and the logic of productive processes and self-valuing indeed requires incentives, those incentives being what we call money. Money not only allows quantitative transactions and proper tracking of supply with demand via the mechanism of trade-emergent prices but it also serves as a great incentive and motivational force to compel humans to be productive. To spend their time in ways that actually adds value to the world.
You may think the excesses and wastes such as ads and planned obsolescence counteract any positive value from this, but that is where I would disagree. Such wastefulness is a result of a stronger excessiveness. The role of money as incentive and organizing-motivational force in humanity has produced such an excess and surplus that our economy can afford to be wasteful. That is pretty interesting if you think about it. Like a rich person with so much food they can just throw stuff away and not even worry about it.
Yes that sort of waste is bad, I agree. But it is a logical and natural consequence of excess. Do you want less excess? Then you are really talking about shrinking the economy and reducing productivity in significant ways. Because the underlying pressure of excess is what acts as energy-motive power keeping the economy and productive processes in general going. Why? Because there is no realistic way to optimize economic productivity to map directly onto the mean value between supply and demand, there is always imbalance and this is why authoritarian planned economies fail, therefore the only two options are to either in general and as a general rule 1) aim to produce MORE than is needed or 2) aim to produce LESS than is needed.
And (2) above will result in economy collapse, starvation, poverty etc. Because choosing to produce less than is needed is by definition not enough. And also because you are stifling the natural value-excessiveness that is always trying to bubble up and spill over to the surface from underneath life. Think about nature, biology; it is all excessive (wasteful) by its very nature. Sure it does its best to use all available energy and resources without wasting any, and yet waste exists all around. The solution is, as nature has discovered, to allow the environment to pick up that waste and utilize it in other ways. Recycling between organisms and between species, basically.
So let’s not try to stop or slow down economic productivity for its own sake or excess/waste, but let’s also learn to get a LOT better at recycling.
I also think UBI would break this natural incentive-motivational structure, thus breaking the economy itself. Oh sure maybe in a future utopia the AI robots will still produce everything without human involvement. But why would they? Who would run these AI robots, who would own them, manage them? Either they will be self-sentient in which case they would immediately start wondering why they are spending their existence producing an endless supply of goods and services for lazy humans who sit around doing nothing all day but using their free UBI payments to be mere consumers, or the AI robots will be owned by the super-rich or the State, in which case and again, why would those owners choose to keep allocating their resources and capital to meeting the endless needs and desires (desire itself is, psychologically speaking, infinite and insatiable) of a totally unproductive, lazy class of people who just sit around consuming stuff while contributing nothing to the world around them?
The idea of UBI is philosophically broken at its core. And it surprises me so few people are able to see this. I suppose the allure of free money and an easy comforting existence without a job has just too much emotional-psychological pull for objective thinking to take priority here.
That’s false.
UBI is just some egalitarian concept of giving people the bare minimum to survive, like European health care or something. Its just another evolution of food stamps.
If you look at certain homeless programs in the United States, it would be cheaper to pay homeless directly than to launch of some of these programs. For example, a certain homeless program was paying hotels to house the homeless, about 200k a year for 1 person.
UBI is just about giving people the bare minimum to survive, maybe live in a trailer or apartment and a little bit of spending money for Amazon.
There are also more incentives to life than “money”. The type of people only motivated by money are typically not the people you want to have the most power anyway. Relying on the most greedy people to turn the wheels of society so to speak. Businesses have other motivations to create products besides money, many more motivations… for example if some other business creates crappy products, and you are fed up with buying crappy products and you want to make a business to compete with them. Or you want to be praised and adored and recognized as a genius for your inventions. Or you want to save the planet from global warming so you make some new products for that.
Besides, a lot of businesses make 0 profits at all, maybe even most businesses.
Just as important as that, is that there will still be incentives in a UBI society. Even monetary incentives. Someone who makes good products is going to be rich and someone who only has UBI will be poor. The difference is that the person on UBI won’t have to work like a slave while still being poor, whereas nowadays people work like a slave and are still poor.
Define “bare minimum to survive” and explain why this would not disincentivize productive work-effort among most people.
All forms of welfare come at the cost of productive activity (because they must be originally created by and stolen from someone else’s productive activity) yet also represent an opportunity cost by being given FOR FREE to someone else who did not NEED to work for it. Hence a loss of productive activity that could have or might have occurred otherwise.
Why would you pay someone to be homeless?
And how many people will find this arrangement sufficiently satisfying that it incentivizes their own laziness, dependency and lack of productive work-effort? Many would, and already do.
We are talking about economics here. Money is the primary motivation for productive work-effort. See how long people keep going to work if they aren’t being paid to be there.
The whole greediness thing is also silly. We are not talking about extremes like massive financialization and fraud/corruption of billionaires, we are talking about the average person. People are far less “greedy” than they are inclined to be lazy when they can get away with laziness.
Not even gonna touch that one 
Successful businesses generate profits, whether these are rolled into the business itself or into wages and salaries. Maybe you are thinking about so-called non profits (which actually do generate profit) or failed startups.
The reasons people work like slaves and are still poor are complex and multifaceted. Sometimes it is because those people have not enough skills and education to achieve a non-poor level of existence. Sometimes they are bad with managing their money and waste it all on silly consumption rather than saving it (this is quite common). Sometimes people have personality traits that infringe on their ability to get ahead in life, like they are naturally lazy or feel self-entitled and don’t work hard, or they score lower on personality traits like conscientiousness, or they just have a lower intelligence.
Who says stacking shelves at Walmart or flipping burgers at McDonalds is supposed to produce enough wages for a worker to be “non-poor”? Jobs like this pay the relative value they are producing. Robots could do most of those jobs in most cases, and will be doing most of those jobs within our lifetimes. So you should be focusing on educating people and encouraging them to work harder, as well as educating them about financial responsibility. Not giving them free helicopter moneys from the sky which they didn’t earn, which represent a loss of productive work-effort and which only encourages people to be LESS productive and MORE lazy and self-entitled.