You did. See my post where I wrote that the WHO claims 250k people will die. You then linked to that same figure and repeated what I wrote. It’s in italics at the bottom of the post. It hasn’t been edited. It was there the whole time.
My derision is based on the fact that someone could possibly think a billion dead humans could be good because “climate change.” It’s a sickening thought to me. It deserves mockery.
No.
I didn’t post news articles. I posted opinions. The writer is the head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ It is listed in UPenn’s Global Think Tank Index Report. Take a look and you’ll see I’m not a run-of-the-mill denier.
While it likely puts me squarely on the denial side of the argument to most people on the left, I am not a denier in the sense of the person who thinks that global warming is completely fake. My two main denials can be summed up as:
I have yet to see evidence that points to imminent (withing 50 years) global catastrophe caused by climate change. It will most likely lower world GDP a few percent. (Not that world GDP will go down by a few percent net. That instead of going up 130% cumulatively, it will go up 127%. Hardly a catastrophe.)
I have yet to see evidence that the most trumpeted solutions re: climate change from the American left will have a net benefit to our country or the world. They will likely have a negligible effect on climate change and cost us trillions.
I’d prefer not having to link to the NY Post. I know it’s a tabloid for the most part. But since it was an opinion piece and not a news article, I figured folks could read it and evaluate it based on its merits, not based on the publisher. You have to admit, it’s not like there are a lot of opinion writers at the WaPo or NYT who are critical of climate change orthodoxy and even fewer that have done the sort of research on the matter that the President of a think tank has done.
Sorry. I meant “rewrite” as in wrote it all over again like I hadn’t already said it. It seemed to me like you were trying to point something out to me that you thought I didn’t know. Otherwise, I wasn’t sure why you wrote it in your post all over again. So it really was a question of “why did you do that?”
Geez the Dow is down another 600+ points this morning and there is talk of a worldwide central bank response to slash interest rates. The VIX is up, though.
This virus is frightening the crap out of everyone. When is this gonna abate? And when should I buy stocks?
ETA
Make that 900+ points. This is becoming absurd! Some smart stocks people are out there licking their chops. Stocks are ON SALE!!
Hedge your bets, buy some now and buy more later as long as it continue the downward slope. Sell when the market is back to normal/up. Even better, don’t buy individual stocks, just buy indexes to it spreadout even more.
Im not sure the best way to adjust the plot, but the big missing piece there is that both inflation and interest rates are historically low and inflation is also low, and there’s no expectation of that changing anytime soon.
It seems that it might make sense that “normal” or “fair value” PE ratios would be higher in the current environment, and going forward. (Beer virus and/or recession risk aside…)
Maybe. Although inflation has been relatively stable, varying within a small window since early 90’s. Which interest rates? The FED rate (federal funds rate) is not historically low, it was 0% ~2008 - ~2015 and is 1.75% now.
I was counting 2008 as this current stretch. The fed rate has not been sustained for anywhere near as long as this current stretch, which is expected to go on for much longer. The only times interest rates have been at similar levels is two times immediately following a crash or recession.
My point is more to compare the rate chart with the SP500 PE chart. Interest rates/ inflation were higher in those periods where the PE stays below 20.
If you’re at 10% interest rate, it makes no sense to own risky stocks unless their PE is lower than 10 (absent expected growth), which is what you see in 1975-1985. The same is not the case if you only “earn” interest (or “lose” to inflation) 1% in safe deposits.
I think a lot of the panic is unwarranted. But to be fair, I also think it’s the level of panic that will render the panic unwarranted. If that makes any sense.
Dont get me wrong, it will get worse before it gets better. Just not anywhere near the worst-case scenarios that feed the panic.
I suspect a sustained stay-home quarantine would be financially devastating for those already living hand to mouth. Not unlike the government furlough, but without the happy ending where you get paid retroactively.
Now is CBS news considered “actual news”?? 
