The original argument was that there was no point in investing, because if you'd invested 10-15 years ago, you'd have made a lot of money. That argument is wrong for obvious reasons, which I will spell out anyway; just because something did well in the past is no reason to think you'll lose money on it in the future.
Your argument is that if you invest in something and it goes down in value, you lose money. That's true but not relevant.
Eli's point seems to be that it's possible to make money on an investment after it's had an explosive growth stage; the obvious truth in counter to the initial falsehood, and in no way addressed by your comment.
I think that the point is that after the explosive growth stage, if something is a bubble you end up in a (possibly) short period before the bust. While you can make money investing during the period, the risk is that much greater that you will miscalculate when the bust will happen and take heavy losses. So:
1. Explosive growth is over, you can't make money anymore.
2. That's not true, you *can* still make money.
3. But attempting to make money at this stage is riskier.
The original argument was that there was no point in investing, because if you'd invested 10-15 years ago, you'd have made a lot of money. That argument is wrong for obvious reasons, which I will spell out anyway; just because something did well in the past is no reason to think you'll lose money on it in the future.
Your argument is that if you invest in something and it goes down in value, you lose money. That's true but not relevant.
Eli's point seems to be that it's possible to make money on an investment after it's had an explosive growth stage; the obvious truth in counter to the initial falsehood, and in no way addressed by your comment.