It's frustrating that someone with such poor critical thinking skills can become so rich.
Anyone with even mediocre critical thinking abilities and a general knowledge of markets would understand that the reason the stock market went up during the shutdown is because investors know the government will be back. This understanding and expectation is obviously priced into the market. If they are implying that the stock market would remain resilient if the federal government disappeared overnight never to return, they are quite simply idiots.
The #1 reason the US and other western nations are able to attract capital and have sophisticated economies is because of their predictable, reasonable legal systems and regulatory environments. Capital commands extremely high rates of return in risky legal frameworks, when an investor doesn't know whether they will be hit up for a bribe or seized by a populist government, they are obviously going to demand much more. A well-developed legal system and the power of the government to enforce laws and judgments is the reason the US is a "safe haven."
because of their predictable, reasonable legal systems and regulatory environments...
Isn't there a argument, then, that increasing the number of laws (or pages in any given law) beyond a certain point begins having negative returns on your predictability and reasonability, because of the power-law increase in interactions between laws?
Comments
It's frustrating that someone with such poor critical thinking skills can become so rich.
Anyone with even mediocre critical thinking abilities and a general knowledge of markets would understand that the reason the stock market went up during the shutdown is because investors know the government will be back. This understanding and expectation is obviously priced into the market. If they are implying that the stock market would remain resilient if the federal government disappeared overnight never to return, they are quite simply idiots.
The #1 reason the US and other western nations are able to attract capital and have sophisticated economies is because of their predictable, reasonable legal systems and regulatory environments. Capital commands extremely high rates of return in risky legal frameworks, when an investor doesn't know whether they will be hit up for a bribe or seized by a populist government, they are obviously going to demand much more. A well-developed legal system and the power of the government to enforce laws and judgments is the reason the US is a "safe haven."
Isn't there a argument, then, that increasing the number of laws (or pages in any given law) beyond a certain point begins having negative returns on your predictability and reasonability, because of the power-law increase in interactions between laws?
He is much more erudite than you give him credit for.
This is a much better instance of him speaking on various affairs, not just on government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59uTUpO8Dzw