Talk:Everything bubble/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV and OR city

This article is attracting attention by financial market players for all the wrong reasons. It's a dangerous POV nightmare.For example, the first para asserts the term "everything bubble" is most associated with Powell and the 2020-21 period. Actually it's near equally associated with each years market action back to 2007, especially since 2017, where mickey mouse hedge funds have attempted shorts, sometimes directly citing "everything bubble" in their marketing, sometimes successful, other times crushed by the big players or even the man in the street as just happened to Melvin.

I'm leaning on personal knowledge here rather than a RS, as no one serious has bothered to refute the false claim that everything bubble is most associated with 2020-21. Why? As the statement is fucking made up. There's absolutely nothing in the two refs used to that talks about the term "everything bubble" at all (though they are about the subject.). This article is being used to support those seeking to build momentum for their short positions, which if successful in creating a downturn, could benefit a few wealthy position takers while causing increased hardship to the earths billions of economically vulnerable people.

Other issues include the one sided definition of everything bubble use in the first sentence. Early sources that re-introduced the term "everything bubble" didn't credit it fully on central bank action, they suggested the pheonomena was also a result of the savings glut.

Then there's the overly long sentence forming the second para which starts of with "The everything bubble was" An unwarranted use of past tense as if to imply the bull market is over. (Tiny chance that it is, but it's way too early to say, it's quite possible it will go on for years) There's no problem in us having an article on this topic. It obviously meets WP:GNG and the view that asset prices may be over inflated has been recently asserted by several well respected mainstream commentators like John Auhters. But I'd suggest it would need to be rewritten from scratch without the OR, without undue emphases on 2021, and with much less anti central bank POV. Im sure some hedge funds would love the current article. But about 90% of serious players in industry and politics have a more mixed or positive view on how CBs have been supporting the economy. As it says in one of the [ sources used in the article: "Central banks know what they are doing— .... you know a bubble might appear, but the cost of not doing anything is probably even higher."

Accordingly, I'll go ahead and retore the article to a redirect until someone either rewrites the article or establishes consensus to keep the POV/OR mess that's there right now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a good WSJ source to the Greenspan put article that's specifically about the "everything bubble", and nicely reflects the mainstream view. If any want to re-establish this article, the WSJ source should be used. No harm in reflecting other perspectives or even mentioning the various record valuations in 2021, but we should avoid presenting just the pro "everything bubble" POV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so forceful in the opening comment above. It was a bit shocking to hear this article was being discussed on Bloomberg chat & then see it was redefining the term. I've had enough of my RL time wated due to a good faith re-defining of an (at the time) little known term back in 2018; by the time I discovered it, it was too late to do anything about it as recent sources has overwhelmingly switched to the wikipedia definition.

Anyhow, I see the article creator had been highly active, but hasn't edited since the opening comment. Look - while it's undeniable that there was some WP:OR going on, this is no big deal. While most mainstream folk with good insight into the Fed & fellow CBs support consider it a net +ve, there's lots of good faith reasons to be sceptical - clearly it has -ve effects on savers, some investors, and isn't doing much for inequality. When researching for a large scope article I often read up to 10x as many sources as I cite, to make sure I can comply with due weight etc. I'd guess that the clear majority of even GA & FA writers sometimes add something to an article that they got from uncited sources or inside knowledge. At least I know I've done this at least twice, I recall reviewing what I'd written & then realising it wasn't supported by the cited source.

So it's definitely no biggie to have an occasional non-compliance with WP:OR. I would still happily support the article creator even if I saw them up for amidship at RfA, and hope to see them return to editing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Restored this article

This article may need to be updated etc., but per the Wall Street Journal staff editor, The Fed Pricked the Everything Bubble, this is now a real standalone topic. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, New York Times, CNBC, and the Times. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this article as it now stands, is that probably greater than 95% of the sources don't mention the words "everything bubble", making the vast majority of this article Original Research WP:OR, which is not allowed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I read through Dot-com bubble and I would guess that only one in three references say "dot com bubble"? However, I do take the point and will try in fix some of this up. The term does deserve its own article and I'm guessing will probably be as notable as the dot-com bubble by the time this cycle ends. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a reasonable amount of usable references here - especially in the history section. The OR areas are the records and notable companies sections, which would need to be updated anyway as the peak of the Everything Bubble was the end of 2021, and not early 2021 per these records. However, the history section usable. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

MMT

The opening of this article, at least with regards to MMT, is very confused. It says the following:

The term is related to the Fed put, being the tools of direct and indirect quantitative easing that the Fed used to execute the monetary easing, and to modern monetary theory, which advocates the use of such tools, even in non-crisis periods, to create economic growth through asset price inflation

So we have two claims about MMT: 1) That MMT supports QE, and 2) that MMT's growth mechanism is via asset price inflation.

It backs this up with a citation to the book The Everything Bubble: The Endgame For Central Bank Policy; however, I'm unable to access this book to check it. But if we check other sources on MMT, like from its advocates[1][2] or even just its own Wikipedia page, we can see both that MMTers are skeptical of QE, and believe the growth mechanism is the traditional Keynesian one of demand, not asset prices.

So unless someone is able to access that boo, I think this article needs to be changed or altered wrt MMT. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:74E6:442C:343B:D49F (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

When I read above that “MMT supports QE” is considered a “claim”, I stopped reading any more. Please, no more “the sky is not blue” arguments. QE is a (if not the) core tool of MMT. 31.187.2.80 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)