Comments on: “Social Justice” and “Income Distribution”

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:11:00 +0000

I read this passage over and over. I think I get his point …

No, you don’t.

Allow me to clarify: James Galbraith is a moron, like you.

Markets don’t care, idiot. That’s the point. You’re not that important. Get over it.

Life isn’t ”fair.” This isn’t equal outcome, amateur economist Galbraiths (both of them).

By: mesaeconoguy

mesaeconoguy — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:03:00 +0000

Because they’re not the same thing, fool.

The difference is choice. That’s what you’re supposedly for, right?

Then how come you’re the biggest obstacle to it? And who the hell are you to decide? You have a well established record of mental incompetence and general ignorance, so you’re obviously not the right guy.

If you honestly believe what you spew on this blog and had any integrity whatsoever, you would immediately relinquish everything you have ever gained via your misidentified “talent” (you’re a living counterexample for signaling theory, more later), and you would apologize to everyone here for your ignorance.

You need to rethink your entire wasted life, sniveling jackass.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:23:00 +0000

Not the underside of his mattress. He made those investments because he expected their return was greater than the return from his next best option. The difference is significant, because it leads to market efficiency.If two assets with comparable risk have different expected yields over some period, then we must expect investors requiring a yield over this period to sell the asset with the lower yield and buy the asset with the higher yield, thus driving the price of the former down and the price of the latter up, until the difference in expected yield no longer exists.Rational expectations depend upon information, and information need not be widely known, but if you only have widely known information, you can’t rationally expect one asset to yield more than another with comparable risk, because this difference between two assets is unstable. An efficient capital market bids it away.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:51:00 +0000

He wouldn’t. The point was regarding marginal value. You can say he has $40 billion in assets, but that does not mean he can cash out and buy $40 billion in some other assets. There is another restriction to that value label–to get that value assumes he would sell only small portions over a long period of time. A realistic valuation would have to depreciate for that.

By: bb_gun

bb_gun — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:44:00 +0000

except under extraordinary conditions, why would bill rapidly liquidate all of his assets? he made those investments because he expected their return was greater than the return from the underside of his mattress. opportunity is everywhere, so there must be a profitable marketplace somewhere. it is difficult to think of a reason for a complete retreat.