They're missing the point, and reso hit the nail on the head.
It's analagous to someone saying, "Academic researchers should be paid more because of what they're progressing mankind". But they're typically not paid more than those working in a for-profit organization who is also doing research.
Instagram was worth that sum to Facebook, just as Lucasarts is worth that sum to Disney. Neither are worth that much for society, though Lucasarts happen to contribute more to society over it's 40 years of existence.
no, this argument is weak. all kinds of implicit assumptions about markets and valuations. markets can be massively innefficient when dimensionalized by (for example) any other variable than information. eg. volatility. but vol has massive market value itself (see: black scholes). subject to massive externality (see: political economy). Regardless, asset bubbles are economically and politically problematic.
It sounds like you just pulled a couple terms out of your behavioral finance textbook and decided to call it a day before substantiating any of your claims.
Well, you wouldn't seem to be able to get through the first point. Which is an analytic critique of emh, not a behavioral one. So you either don't understand this or are mixing your metaphors. Also you argue: I don't understand X, therefore...PQR follows. Which is not solid ground, generally, to make sweeping statements.
Comments
They're missing the point, and reso hit the nail on the head.
It's analagous to someone saying, "Academic researchers should be paid more because of what they're progressing mankind". But they're typically not paid more than those working in a for-profit organization who is also doing research.
Instagram was worth that sum to Facebook, just as Lucasarts is worth that sum to Disney. Neither are worth that much for society, though Lucasarts happen to contribute more to society over it's 40 years of existence.
no, this argument is weak. all kinds of implicit assumptions about markets and valuations. markets can be massively innefficient when dimensionalized by (for example) any other variable than information. eg. volatility. but vol has massive market value itself (see: black scholes). subject to massive externality (see: political economy). Regardless, asset bubbles are economically and politically problematic.
It sounds like you just pulled a couple terms out of your behavioral finance textbook and decided to call it a day before substantiating any of your claims.
not quite.
Which part?
Well, you wouldn't seem to be able to get through the first point. Which is an analytic critique of emh, not a behavioral one. So you either don't understand this or are mixing your metaphors. Also you argue: I don't understand X, therefore...PQR follows. Which is not solid ground, generally, to make sweeping statements.