I like this writeup a lot, but I would say to anyone who's actually reading this should ignore the advice to not go into academia.
If you're reading this, you're probably selected (!) to be someone who is atypical and has a decent shot at succeeding in academia. (See also: SSC on 'reversing all advice you hear'.) i.e.: if you're someone who's taking the time out of your day to read this, you're probably (probably!) similar to "Anita" here.
Agreed re: "mispricing = restatement that this is a contrarian position" -- but to push back on your "lack of feedback" point:
If the market can't price 30-year cashflows, it can't price anything, since for any infinitely-lived asset (eg stocks!), most of the present-discounted value of future cash flows is far in the future.
See eg this Ralph Koijen thread and linked paper, "the first 10 years of dividends only make up ~20% of the value of the stock market. 80% is due to value of cash flows beyond 10 years"
(I wonder how big EMH proponents like Hanson and Yudkowsky explain the dissonance.)
Personally I agree with the economic forecasts and approximate timelines here, but I haven’t seen a way of reconciling the “accelerating growth” prediction with the efficient market hypothesis.
Low 30-year government bond rates in the US (and 50- or 100-year rates in some other countries!) imply the market expects low growth over this time horizon, not ever-accelerating economic growth rates.
If growth goes up and interest rates rise, these are massively overvalued. It’s possible, but, we’d have to tell some some more elaborate stories (AI-led growth is not broad-based? It’s all captured by one firm...? It FOOMs?) if we want to be consistent with EMH.
This smells like a composition effect. Have you checked that this is not just due to e.g. aging of the population; or driven by the rise in immigration?
This is great -- thank you for doing this.
When you write it like that, it seems obvious :)