Here's a theory for you: the increased cost of capital doesn't cause people to stop seeking or loaning out capital, it just directs that capital toward shorter-term projects. A bridge or a skyscraper pays off a lot faster than a startup.

Isn't it more about returns on lending being really low, so investors are forced to put their money elsewhere, like tech stocks and VC funds?

That too, but the same effect applies to equity investors who want to buy equities for diversification.

How long do you think it takes to build a skyscraper? Cuz it ain't short. Just he zoning, funding, and pre-project tasks can take years.

Well, that's why basically nobody builds them in places like New York or SF. Even so, I think you're underestimating how long it takes to make it to a net profit as a startup. Even in one of these cities, the planning-to-profit timeline is under 5 years.

Even 432 Park Avenue, the new huge luxury tower in NYC, took 3 years. A random startup takes a lot longer to get to the money.

How do you define "fundamental thing"? Are we talking primary production here? Or do you mean a stretch of asphalt road for automobiles? Or a steam turbine for thermal electricity generation? a 3nm silicon chip; the factory that makes 3nm silicon chips; the factories that make those factories; a rocket engine; a mRNA vaccine; an office building; a mathematical proof; an astronomical observation; a tank; a nuclear warhead; a computer algorithm; a song; a child?

> How do you define "fundamental thing"?

Some investment just keep adding to society's wealth, while others have a return and then go away. The first kind is really important because it enables new investment on things that depend on it, the second one doesn't.

Well, good luck trying to attribute an specific value for a child. But for your other examples the classification is mostly straightforward.

What fundamental things do you think should have been invested in during low interest times that were not?