正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Do you understand?

171,490 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

33 条评论

Ooojin 🇺🇦 的头像
Ooojin 🇺🇦10 个月前

Then we get taxed on that 8-10%

Supreme 的头像
Supreme10 个月前

thats why you need something that has the potential to give you high velocity returns

Five ✋️ 的头像
Five ✋️10 个月前

I get it. Escape the matrix now.

6942.eth 的头像
6942.eth10 个月前

that's why we use leverage

slim 💹🧲 的头像
slim 💹🧲10 个月前

yes

Erik Stevens 🐆 的头像
Erik Stevens 🐆10 个月前

The great deception

ponderer 的头像
ponderer10 个月前

Year over year inflation in the us is 2.7% and the s$p average return is 11%, he pulled those numbers out of his ass

Niche Baby (papa小孩) 🤭 的头像
Niche Baby (papa小孩) 🤭10 个月前

Yes

Steven 的头像
Steven10 个月前

This just is not true tho.

MSB Intel 的头像
MSB Intel10 个月前

it was never a question of if, only when. glad they're catching on.

Truth Signal 的头像
Truth Signal10 个月前

FYI/

██████ 的头像
██████10 个月前

This guy is clueless. He's not an economist. So he thinks it's abnormal that money creation is linked to growth. What if the US never printed money, and was stuck at 30 billion from 1930 to 2025? Our economy would have never grown. You need currency to scale with productivity

Tom ⛩ 的头像
Tom ⛩10 个月前

what should we do about it? nothing

DOWNLOAD 的头像
DOWNLOAD10 个月前

Understood bro

Lunix 的头像
Lunix10 个月前

Understood Sweep

Drift 的头像
Drift10 个月前

That's actually crazy

RIDDLΞR 的头像
RIDDLΞR10 个月前

Sad truth 😭

Rad 的头像
Rad10 个月前

This is just wow

Scrambller | OTTO 的头像
Scrambller | OTTO10 个月前

Understood bruda

Max 的头像
Max10 个月前

You need to compare the gains of the S&P to inflation

paine🏔️ 的头像
paine🏔️10 个月前

look into SPX6900

Steve 的头像
Steve10 个月前

No the growth in the money supply reflects the growth in production and enables higher velocity of money. If money wasn’t being printed, people would not be incentivized to spend or invest money, because the money they have would only get more valuable.

Ilya Valmianski 的头像
Ilya Valmianski10 个月前

Return in the last 25 years are much higher than 10%, quantitative easy over past 25 years are much lower than 10%. So bullshit is bullshit.

Lina 🦅 的头像
Lina 🦅10 个月前

yeah, got it loud and clear

Christy🌸 的头像
Christy🌸10 个月前

Yes I understand

Pansky 的头像
Pansky10 个月前

we're on that matrix lmao

Gemstone Legacy (perma bull) 的头像
Gemstone Legacy (perma bull)10 个月前

why does it take a professor 25 years to realize something that a 23 year old gambling addict degen understood 5 years ago? where these people brainwashed?

Precival🎴 (theosis arc) 的头像
Precival🎴 (theosis arc)10 个月前

i understand completely

Quark 的头像
Quark10 个月前

📊

Whhyzz 的头像
Whhyzz10 个月前

understood

MrDigit 的头像
MrDigit10 个月前

Yes 🙌

Accelerationist (10T$ needed to Solve Aging) 的头像
Accelerationist (10T$ needed to Solve Aging)10 个月前

@grok explain with more context

notadev.eth 的头像
notadev.eth10 个月前

prof after 25 years finally gets it: s&p nominal 9-10%, but that's not pure profit. objectively over 30 years: nominal total return ~10-11%, cpi inflation 2.5-3%, real 7-7.7%. prof overstated inflation at 8-10% that's closer to m2