Well, the financial market could work for money raise but only as a one-shot game for a regressor: the initial play can be safe and predictable, but everything after that carries exponentially growing uncertainty.
That isn’t entirely the case, since investment in the tech side of the market is predictable if you are a regressor and just invest and don’t invent anything, since some market growths aren’t based on trends but what some markets need for their own growth, like how mining, production and manufacturing will get an increase if their relevant tech markets start growing.
That’s just the thing. It creates ripples. The butterfly effect will go out of control. For example, let’s say I go back and invest in Microsoft. Then invest in Apple. Questions would arise why I was investing in both like that once they really blow up. Those who care would look into major investors. So when I then bypass Yahoo and heavily invest in Google, it’d be like wtf. Not investing in Yahoo would be understandable, since I’m already loaded and constantly making money from Microsoft and Apple, but to then invest in Google, despite Yahoo’s dominance? Would cause an uproar. People will pull out and invest in Google. It would lead to the earlier collapse of Yahoo, and, possibly, people being freed of it sooner and going to work at Bing. With that gathering of minds, some now with grudges, instead of thinking of just a good setup, could try to specifically take down Google. Then I invest in Amazon? GGs. They watch things like that. When a big investor takes a long shot and it pays off, they wonder if it was genius or luck. It changes how they then move.
mockingale
Well, the financial market could work for money raise but only as a one-shot game for a regressor: the initial play can be safe and predictable, but everything after that carries exponentially growing uncertainty.
quackssss
That isn’t entirely the case, since investment in the tech side of the market is predictable if you are a regressor and just invest and don’t invent anything, since some market growths aren’t based on trends but what some markets need for their own growth, like how mining, production and manufacturing will get an increase if their relevant tech markets start growing.
Skyrellian
That’s just the thing. It creates ripples. The butterfly effect will go out of control. For example, let’s say I go back and invest in Microsoft. Then invest in Apple. Questions would arise why I was investing in both like that once they really blow up. Those who care would look into major investors. So when I then bypass Yahoo and heavily invest in Google, it’d be like wtf. Not investing in Yahoo would be understandable, since I’m already loaded and constantly making money from Microsoft and Apple, but to then invest in Google, despite Yahoo’s dominance? Would cause an uproar. People will pull out and invest in Google. It would lead to the earlier collapse of Yahoo, and, possibly, people being freed of it sooner and going to work at Bing. With that gathering of minds, some now with grudges, instead of thinking of just a good setup, could try to specifically take down Google. Then I invest in Amazon? GGs. They watch things like that. When a big investor takes a long shot and it pays off, they wonder if it was genius or luck. It changes how they then move.