|
|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
1942 days ago
|
|
|
Absolute value of assets doesn't matter. What matters is future appreciation potential of those assets. That's my point. You can infinitely subdivide them and see the same appreciation potential recognized over a greater number of units. Yes people who got in before you may have done better than you. They may not have. But the absolute price isn't relevant since owning AAPL shares isn't a necessity for life. On the other hand the absolute affordability of elements of the CPI basket does matter, which is why the CPI basket includes actual apples and not AAPL shares. Remember when you invest in something what you want is for it to become less affordable. That decrease in affordability is called an "ROI" or return on investment. |
|
|
Someones ability to buy in to those assets is relevant for their ability to realize that appreciation.
> You can infinitely subdivide them and see the same appreciation potential recognized over a greater number of units.
So? The units here don’t matter. The fact that the central bank policy resulted in real wage decrease and nominal asset price increase means that central bank policy benefitted the asset seller at the expense of the asset buyer. Playing fast and loose with units doesn’t change this.
> Remember when you invest in something what you want is for it to become less affordable. That decrease in affordability is called an "ROI" or return on investment.
This is a revealing statement and is actually good example of how central bank policy has distorted even the way people think about assets. You only want your investments to increase in price if you intend to sell or collateralize them. As investments proper, you want to earn dividends. But inflation has driven the prices of assets far out of proportion to their returns, so now people think of r.o.i. as something that happens when you sell.