In the theory. You know, the theory that you're correcting me about.
-
Features
Market failures
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
In the theory. You know, the theory that you're correcting me about.
Actually, forget that.
Togo said markets are inefficient.
You said the efficient market argument is not that markets are efficient but that they tend towards efficiency.
I presented a definition that said the efficient market hypothesis does say that markets are efficient and not that they tend towards efficiency and then asked if the EMH was what you were actually talking about.
So, were you talking about the Efficient Market Hypothesis when you made that remark or not? I was prepared to let it go if you said you were talking about something else but you didn't want to answer the simple question "Or are we talking about some other efficient market argument?"
I'll try again:
In your response to Togo were you referring to the
Efficient Market Hypothesis or something else?
Togo said markets are inefficient.
You said the efficient market argument is not that markets are efficient but that they tend towards efficiency.
I presented a definition that said the efficient market hypothesis does say that markets are efficient and not that they tend towards efficiency and then asked if the EMH was what you were actually talking about.
So, were you talking about the Efficient Market Hypothesis when you made that remark or not? I was prepared to let it go if you said you were talking about something else but you didn't want to answer the simple question "Or are we talking about some other efficient market argument?"
I'll try again:
In your response to Togo were you referring to the
Efficient Market Hypothesis or something else?Actually, forget that.
Togo said markets are inefficient.
You said the efficient market argument is not that markets are efficient but that they tend towards efficiency.
I presented a definition that said the efficient market hypothesis does say that markets are efficient and not that they tend towards efficiency and then asked if the EMH was what you were actually talking about.
So, were you talking about the Efficient Market Hypothesis when you made that remark or not? I was prepared to let it go if you said you were talking about something else but you didn't want to answer the simple question "Or are we talking about some other efficient market argument?"
I'll try again:
In your response to Togo were you referring to the
If you would like to have a discussion about efficient markets (including the EMH you linked to) that does not descend into pedantics or general assholery perhaps we should by making sure we are agreed on the basics.
In the theory, what is it that makes markets efficient?
Actually, forget that.
Togo said markets are inefficient.
You said the efficient market argument is not that markets are efficient but that they tend towards efficiency.
I presented a definition that said the efficient market hypothesis does say that markets are efficient and not that they tend towards efficiency and then asked if the EMH was what you were actually talking about.
So, were you talking about the Efficient Market Hypothesis when you made that remark or not? I was prepared to let it go if you said you were talking about something else but you didn't want to answer the simple question "Or are we talking about some other efficient market argument?"
I'll try again:
In your response to Togo were you referring to the
If you would like to have a discussion about efficient markets (including the EMH you linked to) that does not descend into pedantics or general assholery perhaps we should by making sure we are agreed on the basics.
I tried to make sure we were agreeing on the basics when I asked if the EMH was what you were referring to. But you decided to spend time not letting me know if we were talking about the same thing.
Information.
How does information make markets efficient?
I've answered a couple of your questions and you've yet to answer my one question I've asked about 3 times now.
In your response to Togo were you referring to the Efficient Market Hypothesis?
Make it 4 times.
In your response to Togo were you referring to the Efficient Market Hypothesis?
Make it 4 times.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Actually, forget that.
Togo said markets are inefficient.
You said the efficient market argument is not that markets are efficient but that they tend towards efficiency.
I presented a definition that said the efficient market hypothesis does say that markets are efficient and not that they tend towards efficiency and then asked if the EMH was what you were actually talking about.
So, were you talking about the Efficient Market Hypothesis when you made that remark or not? I was prepared to let it go if you said you were talking about something else but you didn't want to answer the simple question "Or are we talking about some other efficient market argument?"
I'll try again:
In your response to Togo were you referring to the
If you would like to have a discussion about efficient markets (including the EMH you linked to) that does not descend into pedantics or general assholery perhaps we should by making sure we are agreed on the basics.
In the theory, what is it that makes markets efficient?
What, wikipedia is no help on this one?
I am of the opinion that the MEH is concerned with the financial markets, not the overall goods and services market. Are you asserting that the overall market is efficient?
The market efficiency hypothesis depends on the idea of anything having both a money value and a "true value," what it is really worth. And the MEH is satisfied even if the money value isn't always equal to the true value but that it is always distributed evenly around the so-called true value. This might be what you call tending to efficient market, the tendency to be grounded to the "true value" of the money price. At least in the neoclassical economics terms. I believe that this is the same as in Bill's Austrian/Libertarian economics.
If this is the case the obvious question is what determines the "true value" that is different from the money price of the item? Or are you still unable or unwilling to answer questions?
I was addressing your question when I suggested we not descend into pedantics and general assholery.
So, anyway, the impression I am left with is that you really don't understand the theory behind why markets are efficient at all, correct?
You read some link and posted it without really even understanding either the link and/or my comment?
This isn't really the basis of what makes market efficient.
There is an old joke:
Two economists are walking down the street. One see's some money on the sidewalk and says "hey, is that a $10 bill?". The other says "it can't be, if it was there someone would have picked it up already."
To say "markets are efficient" means there are no $10 bills on the streets. To say "markets tend toward efficiency" means when there are $10 bills in the street they get picked up quickly. It is the relentless efforts of people looking for inefficiencies that drive markets toward efficiency. If inefficiencies could never exist, there would be no relentless efforts to capture them and no tendency toward efficiency.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
This includes such resource-management troubles as the
I've seen some people try to argue that market failures never happen, but that often involves defining "rationality" or whatever so broadly as to become meaningless, or else trying to define market failures out of existence.
But there is a very interesting recent market failure. In recent years, various oligarchs and plutocrats have whined that they are being treated as badly as the Nazis' victims and lynching victims and the like. But also in recent years, a certain John Aglialoro has produced a three-part movie adaptation of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, a novel that pictures capitalists as Nietzschean heroes who do what many disgruntled workers have done. He is the head of a company that makes physical-fitness equipment, something that has given him the money necessary to make that adaptation. But what I find most curious is that those self-pitying oligarchs and plutocrats have not pumped large amounts of money into making those movies. One might expect them to love a movie that shows what misunderstood geniuses they are compared to everybody else, but they had no interest in financing those movies, and making them glossy, lavish productions with lots of advertising. They are cheap, low-budget productions, and it shows, especially in the third movie. The movies also had different casts and crews, resulting in three Dagny Taggarts.
So by the standard of Atlas Shrugged, the movie is a failure. That book advocates the money theory of value, and in it, Francisco d'Anconia delivers his "money speech", arguing that the love of money is the root of all good.
I'm not sure what the gross receipts of the Atlas Shrugged movies have to do with market failures. In fact your post would have been much better had you not gotten side-tracked into Rand bashing. The sad thing is, most Rand bashers only know of the content of her writings from reading other Rand bashers who only know of the content of her writings from reading other Rand bashers who only know ... you get the point.
One of the ways to detect a person whose knowledge of Objectivism comes from that source is the inevitable Nietzsche reference. They both advocate some form of individualism, but beyond that the similarity ends. They advocate different forms of individualism, but since they both advocate it in some manner, therefore they must be the same.
Then there is the stereotypical pointing out that she favored businessmen qua businessmen, forgetting that half the villains of her books were businessmen. The contrasts are set up at the beginning, comparing Hank Rearden to Orren Boyle, comparing Jim Taggart to Dagny Taggart, comparing Dan Conway to Jim Taggart, etc.
Calling the movie a failure, or a product failure, is one thing. Calling it a market failure? Perhaps you can repeat your argument without the side-track anti-Objectivist rant. Then I can address whatever it is you think your argument is about market failures.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Exactly. That is what someone would write if their full knowledge of Rand came from criticisms of Rand written by people who only read criticisms of Rand written by people who only read criticisms of Rand written by people who only read criticisms of Rand written by people who only read criticisms of Rand written by people who only read criticisms of Rand. You proved my point for me about knowledge of source material.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Next time prove it.
I did by telling you Dagny Taggart liked being raped by old Hank.
You saying she didn't? Maybe it's you that hasn't really read Rand? Are you kind of like those Christians that just regurgitate sermons without actually reading the bible?
You saying she didn't? Maybe it's you that hasn't really read Rand? Are you kind of like those Christians that just regurgitate sermons without actually reading the bible?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Dagny was raped by Hank? That wasn't in the book that Rand wrote. Perhaps a fan-fic, of you can use the word "fan-fic" to describe something written by someone who hates the original story and wants to make a messed up version of it.