1. How people process information in a speed dating setting.
2. The $25,000 armless Barbie foosball set. Seriously, whose relative status does this increase?
4. Scott Sumner "defends" China.
6. A public registry for all stock comment?
Assorted links
Previous post: Bram Cohen on restaurant reservations
Next post: Cinnamon vs. Cassia
2. Obviously, Barbie collectors, among other Barbie collectors.
Seriously, how can Sumner be so stupid? Has he not looked at China’s export and currency controls? Sumner is the exact kind of hypocrite who’d defend China in the same breath as Arizona’s knew anti-immigration bill: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/04/30/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-arizona-immigration-law/
Sumner is right on one simple point; that predictions are a waste of
time.
All of them…those that engage in the practice should get real jobs.
Why can’t they admit they have no idea what will happen.
They are guessing.
Speaking of “stock comment”, check out your 401K balance. . .
I was going to ding Sumner for talking about Faber. He publishes “The Gloom, Doom and Boom Report.” You shouldn’t expect a discussion of modern portfolio theory. However, I saw that Rogoff quote and thought the same thing as Sumner. Economists haven’t really seemed to work out their place in the media yet.
That brings me to the other question. I suspect that it is 90% availability of these blogging economists. It’s easier to talk about what is going on in the bloggersphere (or whatever it’s called) than critiquing statistics. The other 10% is cross-pollination. And that’s not a criticism because non-bloggersphere academia involves cross-pollination. And blogs are better than newspaper columns.
From Bock:
And he got another one a femtosecond later.
Comments on this entry are closed.