mrow84

39 ms·

331.
by mrow84 12y ago
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying in principle, but I still don't really understand how HFT, or indeed anyone who is only trading on prices, adds liquidity as you have defined it, beyond the addition of their initial cap
332.
by mrow84 12y ago
I have a couple of questions for the people on here who actually understand all this stuff. The argument, as I understand it, for why it is useful to have HFTs in markets like the one in the article, is that they provide extra liquidity. My
333.
by mrow84 12y ago
> Things went so well for so long that they thought that the American Way was indestructible. Again, how is that 'Europes" fault? You appear to acknowledge this, but just in case: it's our (Europeans') fault because w
334.
by mrow84 12y ago
Maybe I've misunderstood you, but you wouldn't in any sense "pay" to JAK the opportunity cost of putting your money in their bank, so it can't really be called a fee. Opportunity cost is a thing unearned, not a thin
335.
by mrow84 12y ago
I think that the quantity I offered suggests why there might be a correlation between inequality growth and (r - g), independent of the mechanisms that underlie the returns on capital and labour, and inequality. In words, when r > g, the
336.
by mrow84 12y ago
I hadn't heard of the Lucas Critique before, but it seems to be constrained to policy advice that operates on economic variables over which market actors have control, and I'm not sure that applies here - I'll have to think s
337.
by mrow84 12y ago
When you say that he gives "some assorted data suggesting r has historically been bigger than g except when it wasn't, and that inequality grows except when bad things happen", does he make no attempt to correlate his time s
338.
by mrow84 12y ago
I haven't got the book, but the hypothesis it claims to offer evidence for is given in the introduction, which is available online at [0]: "When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it
339.
by mrow84 12y ago
> It also meant money that could have gone to the hotel owners (capitalists with multi-million pound investments) instead went to a family which was spending time abroad on a cycle-tour through Germany. The money you would have paid to a
340.
by mrow84 12y ago
That one enters into implicit contracts is undoubtedly correct, however I would question the duration of that contract. Firstly, the benefit relationship of all contracts, implicit or otherwise, is asymmetric: the benefits accrued to the em
341.
by mrow84 12y ago
Take individual income as (l + c), where l is the return on labour, and c is the return on capital, and assume a recession reduces both. The rich are rich (long term) through large c, not a balance of l and c, and so as a group they will in
342.
by mrow84 12y ago
So is your thesis that inequality will increase in periods of economic stability, where the volatility is low? Also, can you provide a ballpark figure for (abs(r - g) / volatility)? (edited to improve phrasing)
343.
by mrow84 13y ago
In the company I used to work for we covered quite a range of development targets, from embedded micros up to very high level factory control systems, and I always found the most challenging stuff was "in the middle" - stuff at th
344.
by mrow84 13y ago
For "how do you define "paid enough"?", yes, I did mean they weren't paid enough for the value they create, because of the price distortions I talked about that occur during the bargaining (price setting) process. F
345.
by mrow84 13y ago
I'm not suggesting that "just improving people's health, education, etc. is enough." I'm suggesting that people aren't being paid enough because, structurally, they are in a poor bargaining position, and thus c
346.
by mrow84 13y ago
I agree with you, which is why I think that "People reject the labour theory of value, probably correctly in fundamental terms". Your claim that economic theory "does not promote or justify anything" is clearly wrong, be
347.
by mrow84 13y ago
Sorry, I thought that my questioning whether you were "suggesting that by focusing on wealth creation for ourselves, we improve their chances for wealth creation" clarified it. I was talking about improving the property of "a
348.
by mrow84 13y ago
I didn't say that the other parts of the process had no value, I said that the relative return to people at the bottom of the labour chain is low. My claim is that they are getting paid proportionally less for the work that they do. I
349.
by mrow84 13y ago
I did wonder about elaborating, because I agree with your point about employees necessarily making less, but I didn't think it really necessary. Your final statement "focusing on economic inequality is misguided; what we should be
350.
by mrow84 13y ago
Why do you think it is misguided? You "break the chains of economic mobility" by providing people with enough wealth and time to allow self-improvement; if you withhold that wealth and time by dictating terms from the powerful sid
351.
by mrow84 13y ago
That's simply a rhetorical question, because it is obvious that poverty can only be reduced by providing more wealth to those in poverty. Your rhetoric doesn't address the point though, which is simply that there are (quite dramat
352.
by mrow84 13y ago
I think pessimizer was saying that the relative return to the labour at the bottom end is low. It is like (to be hyperbolic) living a life of luxury, but on giving the starving man who labours for you a bit of food, suggesting that that is
353.
by mrow84 13y ago
Whilst, in the example you provide, it might be the case that "N = all", the cautionary tale offered in the article is that you always need to make sure you are asking the right question, and it is pretty easy to confuse yourself.
354.
by mrow84 13y ago
On further reflection, I have to concede that it is not a particularly good example of the wisdom of crowds idea. Whilst I still think you can interpret his experiment as showing something about how and why WoC can go wrong, essentially alo
355.
by mrow84 13y ago
Yeah I only realised that you were interpreting it differently when I saw your reply to jimhefferon. If you do figure out what bothers you about the sweets==crowd interpretation then do please reply - statistics is so slippery that it takes
356.
by mrow84 13y ago
I would dispute that he (or I) have missed that point - he is simply giving an example as to why one should, as is always the case when undertaking statistical study, make a reasonable attempt to understand the population from which you are
357.
by mrow84 13y ago
I think the point is that you are taking the weights of the candies as proxies for the guesses of individuals - the (sum * 20) procedure is effectively an average-based estimate, like with the 'traditional' wisdom of crowds type a
358.
by mrow84 13y ago
To question a different part of your argument to other commenters: I am very much under the impression that the nuclear family is a fairly unusual mode of societal organisation, historically speaking, because it doesn't provide enough
359.
by mrow84 13y ago
I find myself almost perpetually annoyed by the bureaucratic arms of big organisations, HR and IT in particular, but what you've written is, in my view, a (terrible ;-)) truth. I think a balance of conservative and progressive opinion
360.
by mrow84 13y ago
After some link following to [0] I saw tweet [1], which suggests that the phones wouldn't have been on the network at all. It doesn't really answer my questions, but I think it rules out the phones as a source of information. That

More ›