Is that what you bristle at?
-
-
Replying to @KevinSimler
Fwiw I’m having a much harder time seeing what’s so objectionable about that recent essay. But I read it when I was pretty sleepy, so.....
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
Main problem is treating axioms of macroeconomics -- a considerably debunked discipline -- as axiomatic himself. IE, "GDP" as useful measure
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @spiderfoods
My take: thoughtful people all know that GDP is flawed, but can’t settle on a credibly better alternative. See e.g. Mismeasuring Our Lives
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KevinSimler
Sure. Definitely agree. I have a personal, kinda-emotional past with economics, so I feel personally pulled to engage when people tell me ..
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @spiderfoods @KevinSimler
... that "very smart physics PHDs" employed in finance are somehow more correct, good, etc. I get that EY is making larger point than that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @spiderfoods @KevinSimler
I don't doubt that financiers are exquisite at predicting quantitative outcomes better than others. It's just a very ugly value system.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @spiderfoods
I took his point to be: EMH applies most strongly to pricing in securities markets. Every other “market” is inefficient.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KevinSimler
It was about where/when to apply “efficient market” arguments. Not about what’s good for the world, value of optimizing on GDP, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Separate from that essay, I can maybe catch whiffs of what you’re saying in EY’s writings.
12:50 AM - 31 Oct 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.