Stock market 4-year annualized ROI: 3.75%

Ok, and make sure to count inflation correctly also, e.g., use shadowstats numbers.

The fact that you post about the 4 year return tells everyone all that they need to know about you. And that is, you are completely clueless about investing.

right, but is any of that actionable?

So what?

Dragged down to that because this is a bad year. Down years happen 27% of the time.

You do NOT invest to try to beat inflation. What are you supposed to do, just spend money on a bunch of stuff you don't need now because it will be more expensive later? You invest to have income when you are no longer working.

If you are still further away than 5 years from retirement, you should be putting 15% MINIMUM of your income into retirement accounts made up of diversified mutual funds (no bonds). You do this when the market is hot and when it is not. Twice monthly contributions like clockwork and you should NEVER miss a contribution.

Once you get to within 5 years of retirement, you have some decisions to make. You can either decide to go more conservative and add some bonds to your portfolio, OR stay more aggressive with stocks only and then build up an emergency fund of 3 YEARS of expenses so that when you retire, if the market tanks, you have money to pay bills with that doesn't require you to take from your investment pile. Might seem like a tall order to save three years of expenses, but you should not retire unless you have ZERO debt including a paid-for home (or equivalent extra fund that will pay for rent increases the rest of your life). 3 years of expenses for most retired people who retire with zero debt and a paid-for home isn't that much.

Anyway, stop being a baby. Don't get concerned about a down stock market. Means only that stocks are on sale. Buy baby, buy!

Average inflation for the last 110 years has been about 3.2%. In 1920 the inflation rate was 24%. Are you happier with your 4% or would you rather have 24%? Your call.

Dow peak in Oct 2007 was 14,198.

It cratered in March 2009 at 6,469 -- a loss of @ 54% in less than a year and a half.

Two pessimistic points:

1. Could happen again -- or worse;

2. From Oct 2007 (cherry picked) to today, @ 15 years, the Dow (30,076) has increased a little better than 5% per year during a period of great performance, minus the 1st 1.5 years and the last 9 months.

Usually but not always true. Look at DJIA from 1966 -> 1982. It took 16 years for the market to eclipse it's peak from 1966 at a time when there was double digit inflation. Meaning over 16 years, there was a -70% (number is accurate) real return. Ouch!

Over last decade+, largest single driver of equity returns has been loose monetary policy.
In this hyper-financialized economy, the Fed must crack it's current cycle or else risk losing the empire. I don't see them being able to shore up USD (in terms of purchasing power, not in terms of the dixie or next to energy-short currencies) without killing the economy, and I don't see them killing the economy when interest payments on debt are eating up 10% of GDP and when other countries are dropping UST and FX reserves. They must keep the music on, so I think will loosen again before it breaks, paving the way back to QE infinity.

You did a bit of research from 1966 to 1982 but you addressed U.S. monetary policy and for some reason did not mention Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and his hawish Fed policy. Did you read my post? Since May, 2022, Series I Bonds have had a yield of 9.62%. That is not acceptable. There will be no soft landing. Fed Chair Powell must find his inner Paul Volcker and break inflation. If not, as I stated above, T-Notes & T-Bonds will have yields in (10.xx to 11.xx)% range. No doubt Central Bankers from other nations have told Fed Chair Powell they will dump U.S. T-Notes & U.S. T-Bonds unless he tames inflation. No easing back on Overnight Fed Fund Rate rate increases. No Q.E.

This ^ is a stunning misrepresentation of the market. Ignoring the obvious (you are choosing worst 16 years you could find), you are also choosing a VERY non-representative index (DJIA) for the market. On top of that, you are completely ignoring dividends (stock market returns are made up of capital gains PLUS dividends - not just capital gains).

Looking at the S&P 500 (a MUCH more representative index) over the exact same time period and including dividends shows a real return of 0%. Not great, for sure. But nothing like the -70% you are using to mislead readers. And not too agonizingly terrible for the worst time period you could find.

It isn't a misrepresentation because it's 100% accurate. Neither you, me, nor anybody else can accurately say that over the next "10-15+ years" (as the poster I was replying to gave as a time frame) that "the game with stocks will be very good". I gave an explicit counterexample to show that this is not always the case, hence the preface "usually, but not always true".

While I prefer SPY myself, you are moving the goalposts if the claim is now, "only x is really the market" (particularly when 1. DJIA is listed along with NDX everywhere you go to catch up on financial information 2. during the reference period, the U.S. was an industrial powerhouse and 3. during the reference period, the U.S. placed a much bigger emphasis on domestic production than we do today). To that end, someone can always give an argument that such and such index is better. Why restrict large caps to just the top 500, Russ1 is a better indication! Or why make calls on size factors at all, look at Russ3 or Wilshire5!

Take a look at the volume on DJIA compared to the volume on SPY back in the 60s and 70s compared to now and you will understand why DJIA is often used for reference for periods prior to the popularization of the mutual fund and the inclusion of everyday joes in the financial markets.

What do you mean "will dump"? Sovereigns have already been dumping for years. The Fed is the buyer, and the one who is keeping the lights on.

On the fiscal side, take a peak at tax receipts in 2020/2021 (which were at an all-time highs, a recession and stagnant equity market might change that...), and compare that to mandatory spending (SS and medicare/aid), interest on debt, and military spending. The U.S. cannot meet its obligations, and so will print the difference and be pressured into decreasing borrowing costs.

Powell is more Burns than Volcker. If he was serious about inflation, he wouldn't have been printing from day 1. If rates go to 10%, labor isn't far behind and there is no such thing as mild recessions when the country is this financialized. Have to keep the music playing.

U.S. government are not the sole buyers of T-Bills, T-Notes & T-Bonds. Your main point was The Fed is going to back off soon. Not a chance.

The difference between stocks (at least value stocks like I try to find) and bitcoin is simple. Bitcoin is a fad that is priced based purely on speculation. Someone buying bitcoin is doing so in the hope that some poos schmuck will be willing to pay more for it later. The underlying value of the security is zero. With stocks, you own a share of a company with tenable assets that provides a good or service and hopefully earns a profit doing so. A metric I like to look at with stocks is the ratio of price to book value. If the price of the stock is close to the book value of the company (the value of all of the real estate, capital equipment, etc.), there is very little downside in holding shares in that company, especially when it is an established brand and earns a profit on it's revenue, because even if the company were to be liquidated, the sale of the property would leave you with some money. Dividend stocks are better to hold because the prices tend to fluctuate less and you get quarterly payments from the company.