3 ms·
Awful. All these arguments boil down to "a large number of people couldn't possibly make decisions these bad". Can and do. To be clear, Im not going to continu
by jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
Awful. All these arguments boil down to "a large number of people couldn't possibly make decisions these bad". Can and do.
To be clear, Im not going to continue arguing this point. I find it as dull as trying to convince a fundamentalist that his arguments are circular. That was fun when I was 14 or so, but it's been a long time since.
- MarkusQ 1y agoTo be clear, I was role playing an efficient market fundamentalist. Or trying to. And (trying to steelman the argument) was careful to not specify which group of people were making the bad decisions. It is obvious that at least one side of any pure monetization trade like this are making a bad decision (and it could be both; for some such games the only winning move is to refuse to play). So I certainly wasn't claiming that people couldn't make decisions this bad since (as you note) this is clearly counterfactual. My point is that we're seeing an intersection of "you can't cheat an honest man" and "there's a sucker born every minute," with a touch of "we cheart the other guy and pass the savings on to you"; _everyone_ involves thinks they are making a smart move, and in a case like this at least half of them must be wrong.
- FreakLegion 1y agoYour stab was good. Importantly, an efficient market isn't necessarily a rational market. "This is nuts" describes an irrational market, which may or may not be inefficient.