"The market can stay irrational long than you can stay solvent."

Fund managers with more than 10 years of experience knew that trying to short the market during a bubble is just as likely to bankrupt you as to make you rich. The most difficult part of a bubble is no one has yet found a way to predict with any confidence when it will burst.

For fund managers whose bonus is tied to how they compare to "the market" (i.e. everyone else), the safest path during a bubble is to dive into bubble like everyone else. If the bubble did not burst, they all make gains and pocket nice bonus. If the bubble did burst, every fund manager loses a whole lot of people's money but hey! we are competitive with "the market"!

For people investing with their own money, your best bet is to pull out entirely like Warren Buffet did, unless you don't need the money until 10-20 years later, then you have the option to leave them invested in non-bubble related investments and ride through the burst and subsequent recovery.

100% this.

Smarter hotels should tell their customers they would refund the difference if their room prices (for the same class of room) dropped after the booking. That, plus no penalty cancellation, makes customers more willing to book long in advance, in turn allows better planning for both the hotel and the customers.

What hotels do now only encourage travellers to book only in the last minute and hence create sudden surges which is bad for both customers and hotels. It further discourages people from travelling for leisure and in the long term reduce customers for the hotels.

Wow, they have a Plan B in case of things going wrong, what a concept!

I can envision a future where everyone has their own AI agent who will generate music they like to hear, anytime they wanted it.

And anyone can share what they like with other people, without the pesky stuff like copyright blocking them.

Similarly for novels and movies.

That will be the end of so-called "content creators" who produce junk content and make a living by creating lots of them.

That works for gamers just as well.

I take you never worked remote effectively, or you are one of those obtuse toxic managers insisting on everyone being in the office so you can abuse them.

By being remote, one distances oneself from (1) Toxic work culture and, to some extend, (2) bad manager (especially the micromanaging types). And the time taken to commute to work itself contribute to (4) Increased workload, which is opposite side of the same coin as (5) Staffing shortages.

So remote working alleviated 4 out of 5 issues, and you are blind enough not to see it.

Wow, this so ironic on so many levels!

Who else is old enough to remember Yahoo during the Dotcom bubble?

Guess what's very effective at protecting you from a toxic workplace? Remote working. (Not saying it is 100%)

Guess what happened to remote working in the last two years? RTO mandates.

Guess what's worse than living in hell? Going back to hell after spending a few years outside of it, knowing it is not necessary to doing your job.

Who is surprised that, after RTO mandates, more workers say their workplace is toxic?

Anyone old enough to have witnessed the Subprime bubble in 2008 would see nothing new here. This is just like subprime mortgage CDS that got sold to everyone before 2008, it is a Ponzi scheme trying to get as many people on board as possible to keep it going as long as possible before it inevitably bursts.

The farther this poison spreads, the larger the crater would be when it bursts.

It is time to pull out of the US stock market, find somewhere safe to hunker down a few years so you won't be caught in the burst.

Next in the news: Renaissance 2.0 emerges in Ireland, as the number of artists grew exponentially, art classes in universities became the hottest class as every undergraduate try to cram art classes to qualify as an artist upon graduation.

20 years later: Protests spread across Ireland as government plan to reduce artists support scheme, citing the huge burden to government budget due to over half of the country now registered as being an artist.

Apologies to reply to my own post, but just after posting I realized GP meant opposite of what I thought (missed the "barely").

That's what one got from replying when not having enough sleep.

I wonder if you watched the same video from YangWang or BYD as the rest of the world did, or did you watched some edited version from someone else.

What's obvious was the car *has a limiter* at 500kph, i.e. the car CAN GO FASTER but did not. Why? The tires are only guaranteed for 500kph.

Yes, they used specially manufactured tires for this record, and because no other tire manufacturer is willing to guarantee their tires up to 500kph, they have to source the tires from the one willing to, and the guarantee was "up to 500kph". So the car has a limiter to keep the speed just under 500kph.

Next in the news: Criminals shoplift to lure out drones to follow them a drone trap, to capture the drone to sell for parts.

These drones most likely cost more than what was shoplifted. A bundle of loose strings thrown at the drone could tangle its rotors and easily bring it down. Just lure the drone into an alley with someone hiding above with a bundle of loose fishing lines, then drone-0, thieves-1.

No, the C-suite type didn't "get sucked in" by the hype, they jumped in to *ride* on the hype.

Regardless of outcome, those C-suites get to spend millions to billions of other people's money, for years, all the while paying themselves tens/hundreds of millions every year, to just do something related to the hype to keep the bubble going.

Yes, some years down the road, the hype crashed and burned along with the companies and all the workers there, but the C-suite just jump off with their golden parachute to the next hype, with millions of dollars more than before.

Who did you say got sucked again?

When you have the capacity to create more, much more, stuff than you can sell, no, it is not a "revenue shortfall", it is called "over capacity".

And the right response, in a free market, to over capacity is to let the least efficient producers go bankrupt, and hence reduce the waste of producing stuff no one buys.

It is also called market consolidation, when smaller producers merge to force bigger, more efficient companies in order to survive the culling.

But, when you allow a monopoly to essentially own the whole market, you have the problem of culling that one company means no more producers, while leaving it alone it will refuse to shrink (think of the stock prices!) and continues to over produce hoping for a miracle. Hence the whole economy suffers either way.