Thoughts on human interaction over the next 25 years
posted by winterspeak at
Fama is so utterly clueless on one of the central aspects of economics that I’m baffled as to how he got his prize. See:http://moslereconomics.com/2013/10/15/famas-fallacy/http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25727#more-25727http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/fallacies-of-immaculate-causation/?_r=0
Ramanan beat them to it:http://www.concertedaction.com/2013/10/14/a-clueless-sveriges-riksbank-prize-winner/LOL. Go in reverse Chicago!
Can we please all grow up a little?The prize was given for his work on asset pricing. Fama is not right on everything, but then neither am I, or you, or the Nobel prize committee.
Winterspeak,I must apologize unreservedly for applying such gross levity under the gravitas of such a revered school of economics. But your title was a bit inviting in that context.And let’s be clear as well as grown up:The fact that Fama is persuasively wrong on flow of funds doesn’t mean he’s right on asset pricing.Robert Shiller (and many others) might have something to say about that.Economics should ideally be coherent in its approach to flow of funds, asset pricing, and all the other things.
WS,Fama's observation is not original to him. The description of stock prices as "stochastic" was due to Louis Bachelier who was Henri Poincare's student in 20s/30s. Fama's main point was the use of the phrase "efficient".But this is a strange use of phrases such efficient, efficiency etc. That's it - a Nobel for that!
This -> http://triplecrisis.com/the-man-who-won-a-nobel-prize-for-helping-create-a-global-financial-crisis/
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Create a Link
View my complete profile
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]