2 ms·
There's a reason front running is in the footnote, not the main text of my comment. As such, I suggest you re-read it. The larger point is also not comparable:
by 001sky 14y ago
There's a reason front running is in the footnote, not the main text of my comment. As such, I suggest you re-read it. The larger point is also not comparable: vc is not similar to front-running because it actually adds value.
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoIt appears that you are deciding a priori which activities are value adding and which are not, categorising those you have deemed to not produce value as front-running, and then tracking back by asserting that front-running is not value adding. In reduced form: assuming (X is A) and (Y is not A) and (not A is B) -> (X is not B) and (Y is B). Thus, one is fitting the descriptive (traders and VCs forecast and try to beat the market) to the prescriptive (since traders do not add value but VCs do the former must be front-running while VCs...are doing something else). Fortunately, you are not alone in this error [1]. Unfortunately, it is still irrational. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-partisans-fool-themselves-into-believing-their-own-spin/265336/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-part...
- 001sky 14y agoNah, there is just a huge problem with externalities (see my comment on this below). It's actually important to understand where fundamental value is created and where its not. To some extent, this is a variation or an outgrowth of the classic paradox of emh. It's certainly not irrational or trivial, in sense you allude to. [Its also not 'partisan'.]