--Apple-Mail-19--875026266
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
It is falsifiable, just not easily, as too many lazy scientists
crave. :-) The experimental test is to implement change in the stock
market and see if by somehow removing the easy incentive for leaders
of companies to get rich by screwing the company over, the number of
companies getting thus screwed over goes down. It would be a very
difficult experiment spanning at least a decade maybe more. The
control variables are a huge pain in the ass since so many other
effects would take place over that span of time. You might have to
run many experiments testing many variables to definitively disprove
it. But it is conceivable that you could test the theory and prove
it false, or by not proving it false increase your confidence that it
may be true. And just because it's not easy doesn't mean it isn't
right. :-)
Dave
On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:51 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> But then you have an unfalsifiable theory, Dave! [1]
>
> Also, as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.
>
>
> [1] For the nonscientists, and I hope this isn't already obvious,
> but unfalsifiable = bad. It's a theory with no predictive power,
> ie, not scientific, ie, useless!
>
> --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22 23:16 (Today) \/ ---
>
>> Not being a private investigator, or the FBI, and given that they
>> have been unable to identify such things in advance, I'm not
>> willing to bet on it. Some stock rises are good. Others are based
>> on short term thinking. And 1 year may not be long enough, it may
>> be 5 or 10 years before a company that was good for 25 years
>> finally is destroyed. Or the company may be bought out by other
>> companies such that it ceases to exist as such and thus becomes
>> impossible to track. You only really find out through hindsight-
>> when you have friends who've worked there and described in person
>> what happened. Or when CEOs retire as multi-billionaires at the
>> end of 50 years of this and reveal what they did 25 years ago.
>>
>> So I don't think betting on it is the right way to resolve the
>> matter. :-)
>>
>> How much do you have in the stock market these days? How do you
>> choose who you invest it in? How long term do you think?
>>
>> I've got about $16k, though I'm planning to pull that out soon and
>> put it in my house instead once the account vests (my EDA
>> retirement is basically an online stock trading account). Most of
>> it is in FedEx and UPS, since I heard on NPR that their stock was
>> way down due to gas prices, and I thought to myself "I use them
>> every day in my company and they do a great job, that doesn't make
>> sense, they'll bounce back". So far I've been right, but only
>> about 5-6% on average, not too exciting.
>>
>> The next time I invest in the stock market will probably be to
>> support a small company trying to get started. I may be the one
>> starting it. :-)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if this was clear but I meant to propose this as an actual
>>> wager. I think disagreements are much more interesting when the
>>> participants can quantify their confidence in their positions.
>>> (I also have the ulterior motive that we're working on adding new
>>> betting mechanisms, and decision/prediction mechanisms, into
>>> yootles.)
>>> Any other ways we can turn this disagreement into a prediction about
>>> some measurable future thing? My position is that Dave only appears
>>> right through the power of hindsight.
>>> On 8/22/07, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>> Dave, if you pick a stock that surges up on some short-term news
>>>> I'll bet
>>>> you a large amount of money that it will still be up, say, 1
>>>> year later.
>>>> (Does that pin down the heart of what we disagree about?)
>>>> --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22 09:57 (Today) \/ ---
>>>>> You point out some potential benefits, and others have pointed
>>>>> out specific
>>>>> examples. I agree with these, but my argument is not that the
>>>>> stock market
>>>>> should be abolished. It does provide value. My argument is that
>>>>> it's got
>>>>> flaws that are getting worse, and thus should be recognized.
>>>>> What of examples like Enron where executives obfuscated the
>>>>> records, made
>>>>> millions to billions, then screwed everyone else when it
>>>>> collapsed? Or the
>>>>> CEOs who inflate the value, cash out in the stock market, then
>>>>> leave before
>>>>> the company collapses into ruins in a series of buyouts? In
>>>>> these cases the
>>>>> stock market and the traders and the collective wisdom are
>>>>> easily fooled, and
>>>>> get fooled over and over again, at least in the short run. But
>>>>> the way the
>>>>> stock market works incentivizes these short term illusions
>>>>> because it creates
>>>>> the ability to get really rich because of them. As stocks trade
>>>>> faster and
>>>>> easier and information becomes more distant from the traders
>>>>> this will become
>>>>> more prevalent, or so I believe.
>>>>> How do we fix that without removing the collective wisdom
>>>>> evaluation of
>>>>> corporate strategies? Though additionally I'll put my faith
>>>>> in a handful of
>>>>> experts over the collective wisdom any day. I think the
>>>>> collective wisdom
>>>>> lags and follows those who really understand the companies and
>>>>> technology
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> As far as short-selling companies who are pursuing the above
>>>>> strategies, I
>>>>> think that is a good strategy, and I'm sure there are some who
>>>>> do make a
>>>>> profit doing that... but it requires longer term thinking and
>>>>> longer term
>>>>> strategies to do so, and the fact that we're moving away that
>>>>> as a society
>>>>> means that such strategies won't counterbalance the problem.
>>>>> Though again
>>>>> the stock market alone isn't the only cause of short term
>>>>> thinking. I just
>>>>> think it's one piece of the issue, and perhaps one that could
>>>>> be adjusted to
>>>>> help improve it.
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>>>> Not only do I disagree with Dave, I'll go so far as to claim
>>>>>> he disagrees
>>>>>> with his own position. If not, Dave, why not make a killing
>>>>>> shorting stock
>>>>>> of the next company to do a round of layoffs for the sake of a
>>>>>> short term
>>>>>> boost in stock price? The market is smarter than we think.
>>>>>> Nor do I have a beef with day traders. Either they're
>>>>>> providing valuable
>>>>>> information to the market or they're going to get smacked
>>>>>> hard. (In
>>>>>> expectation at least.) In any case, they're paying a fair
>>>>>> rate for the
>>>>>> money they borrow and no matter how little time they own a
>>>>>> stock they are,
>>>>>> in aggregate, contributing to the investment in those
>>>>>> companies. (And
>>>>>> short-selling is just borrowing stock, later buying it to pay
>>>>>> back the
>>>>>> loan, so nothing slimy about that, contrary to popular
>>>>>> conception.)
>>>>>> I used to be like Dave, pointing to a litany of "obvious"
>>>>>> flaws in the
>>>>>> market (stock market or "the market" more generally, like
>>>>>> microsoft being
>>>>>> sucky (for me) yet rich). But the market had a habit of being
>>>>>> smarter than
>>>>>> me and I've learned some humility in this regard.
>>>>>> As for Dave's specific allegation (the stock market focuses on
>>>>>> short term
>>>>>> gains), I don't think that's true. The stock price estimates
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>> per-share net present value of) the cumulative future cash
>>>>>> flow of the
>>>>>> company. The stock market estimates that better than any
>>>>>> other known
>>>>>> mechanism. It is of course prone to fits of hysteria but when
>>>>>> it does it's
>>>>>> taking a very *long term* (fantasy) view.
>>>>>> That said, there are cases where markets fail and that is in
>>>>>> the face of
>>>>>> externalities. A classic example of an externality is the
>>>>>> Tragedy of the
>>>>>> Commons in which a bunch of farmers ruin a common grazing
>>>>>> field because no
>>>>>> one person has incentive to ration their use of it if no one
>>>>>> else is. It's
>>>>>> analogous to traffic congestion which is one of several
>>>>>> reasons we need
>>>>>> higher taxes (gas, roads) on driving. [1]
>>>>>> The need to tax pollution is another classic example.
>>>>>> Eugene's Starving Artist is an interesting example of a
>>>>>> possible market
>>>>>> failure. That might be explained in terms of externalities
>>>>>> (positive this
>>>>>> time) if the art was of a kind that couldn't be charged for by
>>>>>> usage
>>>>>> (public sculpture perhaps). In other words, you have free-
>>>>>> riders.
>>>>>> Eugene's Down On Their Luck example I believe is an argument
>>>>>> for risk
>>>>>> pooling, one form of which is the "social safety net", ie,
>>>>>> welfare. It
>>>>>> seems that participation should be optional though.
>>>>>> Clare's Parasite CEO example I'm still thinking about...
>>>>>> Danny
>>>>>> [1] See:
>>>>>> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-for-
>>>>>> high-gas-prices/
>>>>>> and add to the list that cars are dangerous to cyclists and
>>>>>> skaters!
>>>>>> --- \/ FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.20 15:21 (Yesterday) \/ ---
>>>>>>> I'll rephrase my claim:
>>>>>>> "Playing the stock market with the objective of short term
>>>>>>> gains does not
>>>>>>> contribute to society, and in fact actively harms it."
>>>>>>> But I do think that is true. The stock market has some
>>>>>>> benefits, and there
>>>>>>> are good reasons to have such a thing around, but ours needs
>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>> Stock prices can be a measurement of a companies performance,
>>>>>>> but it can
>>>>>>> too easily be influenced in the short term for short term
>>>>>>> reasons. I feel
>>>>>>> like it has become common for companies to trim benefits
>>>>>>> packages, switch
>>>>>>> CEOs, cut R&D, and do other things which provide a benefit
>>>>>>> the company for
>>>>>>> one quarter, and thus make the stock market evaluation bounce
>>>>>>> when their
>>>>>>> profits look good for a moment, but which have serious long
>>>>>>> term costs.
>>>>>>> The CEOs in charge, and the investors, like this strategy
>>>>>>> because they can
>>>>>>> profit from it, then get out before the stock goes down again
>>>>>>> in the long
>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>> Many people lose from this- not only those holding the stocks
>>>>>>> when the
>>>>>>> company goes down in general, but the employees of the
>>>>>>> company, and those
>>>>>>> using the services of the company. The stock market
>>>>>>> encourages short term
>>>>>>> thinking for short term gain and our country has become swept
>>>>>>> up in this.
>>>>>>> I personally know people who have had their companies
>>>>>>> destroyed this way.
>>>>>>> I feel like people invest not so much with an idea for
>>>>>>> building long term
>>>>>>> stability and high probability of reasonable returns, but as
>>>>>>> more of a get
>>>>>>> rich quick theme. And furthermore computer trading and other
>>>>>>> features have
>>>>>>> made it easier to trade shorter and shorter term with little
>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>> or analysis of the companies involved. So stock values become
>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>> by more trivial surface things, because that's all these day
>>>>>>> traders have
>>>>>>> time to see. So now companies are making trivial surface
>>>>>>> changes to
>>>>>>> satisfy the whim of short term investors, at long term cost.
>>>>>>> There was a big discussion on NPR about hedge funds, stock
>>>>>>> market trading
>>>>>>> of mortgages, and how it led to the creation of, and current
>>>>>>> bursting of,
>>>>>>> the housing market bubble. Part of the problem was that stock
>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>> investing had become too disassociated from the things being
>>>>>>> invested in
>>>>>>> and the real long term values thereof.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile most people, who work for the companies thus
>>>>>>> traded, suffer.
>>>>>>> Ironically it's their own investment in stock market based
>>>>>>> IRAs that helps
>>>>>>> drive the process.
>>>>>>> So I would argue that the system needs to change. Not that we
>>>>>>> need to get
>>>>>>> rid of the stock market entirely, but that we need to shift
>>>>>>> the way it
>>>>>>> works to put the focus back on valuing companies that have
>>>>>>> good long term
>>>>>>> strategies, and less on valuing get rich quick schemes. What
>>>>>>> if you had to
>>>>>>> own a stock for at least a month before you could resell it?
>>>>>>> Or a week? Or
>>>>>>> a year? I'm not sure where the right number would be, but it
>>>>>>> really seems
>>>>>>> to me that traders who sign on in the morning, borrow $10M
>>>>>>> from a bank,
>>>>>>> trade all day back and forth, return the $10M at the end of
>>>>>>> the day having
>>>>>>> made $100k, they aren't really helping society, and could be
>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>> harming it in some real and significant ways.
>>>>>>> Of course part of this also is changing the attitudes of
>>>>>>> people and
>>>>>>> whether they should be looking to get rich quick at any
>>>>>>> expense, or
>>>>>>> whether they should be looking to help themselves, and
>>>>>>> incidentally also
>>>>>>> society, in the long run. But from a top down approach at
>>>>>>> least we can put
>>>>>>> in mechanisms that are designed to encourage the latter
>>>>>>> instead of the
>>>>>>> former. We can't force anything, and I wouldn't want that
>>>>>>> level of
>>>>>>> government control, but right now I feel like we strong
>>>>>>> encouragements to
>>>>>>> the opposite of what we want.
>>>>>>> In the meantime I'll make sure that my company is never
>>>>>>> publicly traded so
>>>>>>> I don't have to worry about it. :-)
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Kevin Lochner wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have to take issue with Dave Morris re: "Playing the stock
>>>>>>>> market does
>>>>>>>> not contribute to society."
>>>>>>>> Not only does a company's stock price influence its access
>>>>>>>> to capital,
>>>>>>>> but the respective stock prices of all companies provide
>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>> about the state of the economy that a ceo or entrepeneur may
>>>>>>>> use in
>>>>>>>> making strategic corporate decisions. Stock prices are
>>>>>>>> determined
>>>>>>>> primarily by people who are "playing the stock market".
>>>>>>>> Investing in new companies does. It's a fine line, but
>>>>>>>>> I think we've gotten too much separation of rich and poor
>>>>>>>>> in our society
>>>>>>>>> because of the way our stock market currently operates, and
>>>>>>>>> that could
>>>>>>>>> use some correction. I agree that inheritance taxes are
>>>>>>>>> good as well,
>>>>>>>>> to help prevent too many generations of people staying rich
>>>>>>>>> for free.
>>>>>>>>> But we should try to reign in the various tricks which
>>>>>>>>> exist to leverage
>>>>>>>>> large sums of cash into even larger sums via short term
>>>>>>>>> tricks in
>>>>>>>>> business and stocks without actually contributing
>>>>>>>>> anything. Not only
>>>>>>>>> do they take funds from people with less, they hurt the
>>>>>>>>> country overall.
>>>>>>>>> But he is also correct- there's a wide variance of skill
>>>>>>>>> and motivation
>>>>>>>>> in people, so there should be a wide variance in income
>>>>>>>>> levels. I'd
>>>>>>>>> accept a factor of 100 variance from top to bottom in
>>>>>>>>> salary as a
>>>>>>>>> reasonable maximum in relative value to society that a
>>>>>>>>> person could be.
>>>>>>>>> Some people bust their asses continuously to help the
>>>>>>>>> world. Some people
>>>>>>>>> actively try to live off of others without contributing
>>>>>>>>> anything. I
>>>>>>>>> do have a problem with the factor of 1000 or 10000
>>>>>>>>> variances that
>>>>>>>>> sometimes occur, but those are obvious flaws that are
>>>>>>>>> difficult to
>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>> Interesting to consider. :-)
>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We've been debating this essay
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html
>>>>>>>>>> and I thought I'd move it to improvetheworld...
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start: Graham is so right! The income gap between
>>>>>>>>>> the rich and
>>>>>>>>>> the poor is wonderful!
>>>>>>>>>> Actually it started more as a debate about the nature of
>>>>>>>>>> capitalism and
>>>>>>>>>> interest ("why should money 'grow'?"). Here was the gist:
>>>>>>>>>> * [the economy] is a zero-sum game, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>> - no
>>>>>>>>>> * those earning money are taking it away, even if only
>>>>>>>>>> indirectly, from
>>>>>>>>>> other people, no?
>>>>>>>>>> - no, not if you think in terms of wealth (wealth = stuff
>>>>>>>>>> you want,
>>>>>>>>>> money = way to transfer wealth)
>>>>>>>>>> * Or am I totally simplifying the haves vs. the have-nots
>>>>>>>>>> with my pie
>>>>>>>>>> metaphor?
>>>>>>>>>> - yes, that's precisely the Daddy Model of Wealth!
>>>>>>>>>> * Is it THEORETICALLY possible for no one to owe any money
>>>>>>>>>> at all in
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> world, i.e., that everyone just has money that "grows"? Or
>>>>>>>>>> does money
>>>>>>>>>> only grow if it is taken away from others?
>>>>>>>>>> - You're right, not possible, but for the opposite reason
>>>>>>>>>> of what you
>>>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>> to be suggesting. You grow money by giving it to someone
>>>>>>>>>> (lending it),
>>>>>>>>>> not by taking it away.
>>>>>>>>>> It even got a bit heated, along the lines of "Trixie, I
>>>>>>>>>> don't think
>>>>>>>>>> it's right for you to lash out against capitalistic/
>>>>>>>>>> yootlicious ideas
>>>>>>>>>> without grokking the answers to your questions [above]".
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and I offered a yootle to the first person who could
>>>>>>>>>> answer the
>>>>>>>>>> quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, with
>>>>>>>>>> the hint that
>>>>>>>>>> it has to do with human mortality. I believe that's the
>>>>>>>>>> only reason
>>>>>>>>>> that holds in all circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>> In any case, Trixie wanted to resume the debate and this
>>>>>>>>>> is clearly the
>>>>>>>>>> place to do it!
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU REPLY (so it's
>>>>>>>>>> easy for those
>>>>>>>>>> not interested in this debate to delete the whole thread).
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, go!
>>>>>>>>>> Danny
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - -
>>>>>>>>>> search://"Daniel Reeves"
>>>>>>>>>> "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
>>>>>>>>>> -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents,
>>>>>>>>>> 1899.
>>>>>>>>> Dave Morris
>>>>>>>>> cell: 734-476-8769
>>>>>>>>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
>>>>>>> Dave Morris
>>>>>>> cell: 734-476-8769
>>>>>>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel
>>>>>> Reeves"
>>>>>> "Try identifying the problem and then solving it."
>>>>>> -- suggestion from Dilbert's boss
>>>>> Dave Morris
>>>>> cell: 734-476-8769
>>>>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
>>>> --
>>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel
>>>> Reeves"
>>>> "Backup not found. (A)bort (R)etry (T)ake down the entire network:"
>>> --
>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel
>>> Reeves"
>>
>> Dave Morris
>> cell: 734-476-8769
>> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
>>
>>
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> "We're kind of being trained to be warriors, only in a much funner
> way."
> -- Jesus Camp participant, age ~9
>
>
>
Dave Morris
cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-19--875026266
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
It is falsifiable, just not easily , as too many lazy scientists crave. :-)
The experimental test is to =A0implement change in the stock market and see if
by somehow removing the easy incentive for leaders of companies to get rich by
screwing the company over, the number of companies getting thus screwed over
goes down . It would be a very difficult experiment spanning at least a decade
maybe more. The control variables are a huge pain in the ass since so many
other effects would take place over that span of time. =A0You might have to
run many experiments testing many variables to definitively disprove it.
=A0But it is conceivable that you could test the theory and prove it false, or
by not proving it false increase your confidence that it may be true.=A0
=A0And just because it's not easy doesn't mean it isn 't right. :-) Dave
On Aug 23, 07, at 2:51 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote: But then you have an
unfalsifiable theory, Dave! [1] Also, as they say, the plural of anecdote
is not data . [1] For the nonscientists, and I hope this isn't already
obvious, but unfalsifiable =3D bad. =A0 It's a theory with no predictive
power, ie, not scientific, ie, useless ! --- \/ =A0 FROM Dave Morris AT
07.08.22 23:16 (Today) =A0 \/ --- Not being a private investigator , or
the FBI, and given that they have been unable to identify such things in
advance, I'm not willing to bet on it. Some stock rises are good. Others are
based on short term thinking. And 1 year may not be long enough, it may be 5
or 10 years before a company that was good for 25 years finally is destroyed.
Or the company may be bought out by other companies such that it ceases to
exist as such and thus becomes impossible to track. You only really find out
through hindsight - when you have friends who've worked there and described in
person what happened. Or when CEOs retire as multi-billionaires at the end of
50 years of this and reveal what they did 25 years ago. So I don 't think
betting on it is the right way to resolve the matter. :-) How much do you
have in the stock market these days? How do you choose who you invest it in?
How long term do you think ? I've got about $16k, though I'm planning to
pull that out soon and put it in my house instead once the account vests (my
EDA retirement is basically an online stock trading account). Most of it is
in FedEx and UPS, since I heard on NPR that their stock was way down due to
gas prices, and I thought to myself "I use them every day in my company and
they do a great job, that doesn't make sense, they'll bounce back ". So far
I've been right, but only about 5-6% on average, not too exciting . The
next time I invest in the stock market will probably be to support a small
company trying to get started. I may be the one starting it. :-) Dave
On Aug 22, 07, at 9:35 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote: Not sure if this was
clear but I meant to propose this as an actual wager. =A0 I think
disagreements are much more interesting when the participants can quantify
their confidence in their positions. (I also have the ulterior motive that
we're working on adding new betting mechanisms, and decision /prediction
mechanisms, into yootles.) Any other ways we can turn this disagreement into a
prediction about some measurable future thing ? =A0 My position is that
Dave only appears right through the power of hindsight . On 8/22/07, Daniel
Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu > wrote: Dave, if you pick a stock
that surges up on some short-term news I'll bet you a large amount of money
that it will still be up , say, 1 year later. =A0 (Does that pin down the
heart of what we disagree about?) --- \/ =A0 FROM Dave Morris AT 07.08.22
:57 (Today) =A0 \/ --- You point out some potential benefits, and others
have pointed out specific examples. I agree with these, but my argument is not
that the stock market should be abolished. It does provide value. My
argument is that it's got flaws that are getting worse, and thus should be
recognized . What of examples like Enron where executives obfuscated the
records, made millions to billions, then screwed everyone else when it
collapsed? Or the CEOs who inflate the value, cash out in the stock market,
then leave before the company collapses into ruins in a series of buyouts?
In these cases the stock market and the traders and the collective wisdom are
easily fooled, and get fooled over and over again, at least in the short
run. But the way the stock market works incentivizes these short term
illusions because it creates the ability to get really rich because of them.
As stocks trade faster and easier and information becomes more distant from
the traders this will become more prevalent, or so I believe . How do we fix
that without removing the collective wisdom evaluation of corporate
strategies? =A0 Though additionally I'll put my faith in a handful of
experts over the collective wisdom any day. I think the collective wisdom
lags and follows those who really understand the companies and technology
anyway. As far as short-selling companies who are pursuing the above
strategies, I think that is a good strategy, and I'm sure there are some who
do make a profit doing that... but it requires longer term thinking and
longer term strategies to do so, and the fact that we're moving away that as
a society means that such strategies won 't counterbalance the problem. =A0
Though again the stock market alone isn 't the only cause of short term
thinking. I just think it's one piece of the issue, and perhaps one that
could be adjusted to help improve it . Dave On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:44 PM,
Daniel Reeves wrote : Not only do I disagree with Dave, I'll go so far as
to claim he disagrees with his own position. =A0 If not, Dave, why not make a
killing shorting stock of the next company to do a round of layoffs for the
sake of a short term boost in stock price? =A0 The market is smarter than we
think . Nor do I have a beef with day traders . =A0 Either they're providing
valuable information to the market or they're going to get smacked hard. =A0
(In expectation at least.) =A0 In any case, they're paying a fair rate for
the money they borrow and no matter how little time they own a stock they
are, in aggregate , contributing to the investment in those companies. (And
short-selling is just borrowing stock , later buying it to pay back the loan,
so nothing slimy about that, contrary to popular conception.) I used to be
like Dave, pointing to a litany of "obvious" flaws in the market (stock
market or "the market" more generally, like microsoft being sucky (for me)
yet rich). =A0 But the market had a habit of being smarter than me and I've
learned some humility in this regard. As for Dave's specific allegation (the
stock market focuses on short term gains), I don't think that's true. =A0 The
stock price estimates (the per-share net present value of) the cumulative
future cash flow of the company. =A0 The stock market estimates that better
than any other known mechanism. =A0 It is of course prone to fits of
hysteria but when it does it 's taking a very *long term* (fantasy) view.
That said, there are cases where markets fail and that is in the face of
externalities. A classic example of an externality is the Tragedy of the
Commons in which a bunch of farmers ruin a common grazing field because no
one person has incentive to ration their use of it if no one else is. It's
analogous to traffic congestion which is one of several reasons we need
higher taxes (gas, roads) on driving. [1] The need to tax pollution is another
classic example . Eugene's Starving Artist is an interesting example of a
possible market failure. =A0 That might be explained in terms of
externalities (positive this time) if the art was of a kind that couldn't be
charged for by usage (public sculpture perhaps ). =A0 In other words , you
have free-riders. Eugene's Down On Their Luck example I believe is an
argument for risk pooling, one form of which is the "social safety net ", ie,
welfare. =A0 It seems that participation should be optional though.
Clare's Parasite CEO example I'm still thinking about... Danny [1] See:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-for-high -gas-prices/
and add to the list that cars are dangerous to cyclists and skaters! --- \/
=A0 FROM Dave Morris AT .08.20 15:21 (Yesterday) =A0 \/ --- I'll
rephrase my claim: "Playing the stock market with the objective of short
term gains does not contribute to society, and in fact actively harms it ."
But I do think that is true. The stock market has some benefits, and there
are good reasons to have such a thing around, but ours needs help. Stock
prices can be a measurement of a companies performance , but it can too easily
be influenced in the short term for short term reasons. I feel like it has
become common for companies to trim benefits packages, switch CEOs, cut R
&D, and do other things which provide a benefit the company for one
quarter, and thus make the stock market evaluation bounce when their profits
look good for a moment, but which have serious long term costs . The CEOs in
charge, and the investors , like this strategy because they can profit from
it, then get out before the stock goes down again in the long run. Many
people lose from this- not only those holding the stocks when the company
goes down in general , but the employees of the company, and those using the
services of the company. The stock market encourages short term thinking for
short term gain and our country has become swept up in this. I personally
know people who have had their companies destroyed this way. I feel like
people invest not so much with an idea for building long term stability and
high probability of reasonable returns , but as more of a get rich quick theme
. And furthermore computer trading and other features have made it easier to
trade shorter and shorter term with little understanding or analysis of the
companies involved. So stock values become influenced by more trivial surface
things, because that's all these day traders have time to see . So now
companies are making trivial surface changes to satisfy the whim of short term
investors, at long term cost. There was a big discussion on NPR about hedge
funds, stock market trading of mortgages , and how it led to the creation of,
and current bursting of , the housing market bubble. Part of the problem was
that stock market investing had become too disassociated from the things
being invested in and the real long term values thereof. Meanwhile most
people, who work for the companies thus traded, suffer. Ironically it's their
own investment in stock market based IRAs that helps drive the process. So I
would argue that the system needs to change. Not that we need to get rid of
the stock market entirely , but that we need to shift the way it works to put
the focus back on valuing companies that have good long term strategies, and
less on valuing get rich quick schemes. What if you had to own a stock for at
least a month before you could resell it? Or a week? Or a year? I'm not sure
where the right number would be, but it really seems to me that traders who
sign on in the morning, borrow $10M from a bank, trade all day back and
forth, return the $10M at the end of the day having made $100k, they aren't
really helping society, and could be actually harming it in some real and
significant ways. Of course part of this also is changing the attitudes of
people and whether they should be looking to get rich quick at any expense,
or whether they should be looking to help themselves, and incidentally also
society, in the long run. But from a top down approach at least we can put in
mechanisms that are designed to encourage the latter instead of the former.
We can't force anything , and I wouldn't want that level of government
control, but right now I feel like we strong encouragements to the opposite
of what we want. In the meantime I'll make sure that my company is never
publicly traded so I don't have to worry about it. :-) Dave On Aug 20,
2007, at 1:29 PM, Kevin Lochner wrote : I have to take issue with Dave
Morris re: "Playing the stock market does not contribute to society." Not
only does a company's stock price influence its access to capital, but the
respective stock prices of all companies provide information about the state
of the economy that a ceo or entrepeneur may use in making strategic corporate
decisions. =A0 Stock prices are determined primarily by people who are
"playing the stock market". Investing in new companies does. It's a fine
line, but I think we've gotten too much separation of rich and poor in our
society because of the way our stock market currently operates, and that
could use some correction. =A0 I agree that inheritance taxes are good as
well, to help prevent too many generations of people staying rich for free.
But we should try to reign in the various tricks which exist to leverage
large sums of cash into even larger sums via short term tricks in business
and stocks without actually contributing anything . =A0 Not only do they
take funds from people with less, they hurt the country overall. But he is
also correct- there's a wide variance of skill and motivation in people, so
there should be a wide variance in income levels. I'd accept a factor of 100
variance from top to bottom in salary as a reasonable maximum in relative
value to society that a person could be. Some people bust their asses
continuously to help the world. Some people actively try to live off of others
without contributing anything. I do have a problem with the factor of 1000
or 10000 variances that sometimes occur, but those are obvious flaws that are
difficult to correct. Interesting to consider. :-) Dave On Aug 20, 07, at
10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote: We've been debating this essay
http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html and I thought I'd move it to
improvetheworld ... I'll start: =A0 Graham is so right! =A0 The income gap
between the rich and the poor is wonderful! Actually it started more as a
debate about the nature of capitalism and interest ("why should money
'grow'?"). =A0 Here was the gist: * [the economy ] is a zero-sum game, isn't
it? - no * those earning money are taking it away, even if only indirectly,
from other people, no ? - no, not if you think in terms of wealth (wealth
=3D stuff you want, money =3D way to transfer wealth) * Or am I totally
simplifying the haves vs. the have-nots with my pie metaphor? - yes, that's
precisely the Daddy Model of Wealth! * Is it THEORETICALLY possible for no
one to owe any money at all in this world, i.e., that everyone just has
money that "grows"? Or does money only grow if it is taken away from others?
- You're right, not possible, but for the opposite reason of what you seem
to be suggesting. =A0 You grow money by giving it to someone (lending it),
not by taking it away. It even got a bit heated, along the lines of "Trixie,
I don't think it's right for you to lash out against capitalistic/yootlicious
ideas without grokking the answers to your questions [above]". Oh, and I
offered a yootle to the first person who could answer the quasiphilosophical
question why money *should* grow, with the hint that it has to do with human
mortality . =A0 I believe that 's the only reason that holds in all
circumstances . In any case, Trixie wanted to resume the debate and this is
clearly the place to do it! DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU REPLY
(so it's easy for those not interested in this debate to delete the whole
thread). Ok, go! Danny -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 -
- =A0 search://"Daniel Reeves " "Everything that can be invented has been
invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner , U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
Dave Morris cell: 4-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
-- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0 search://"Daniel
Reeves " "Try identifying the problem and then solving it." -- suggestion
from Dilbert's boss Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/ --
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0 search://"Daniel
Reeves " "Backup not found. (A)bort (R)etry (T)ake down the entire network:"
-- =A0 http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0
search://"Daniel Reeves " Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/ -- =A0
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0 search://"Daniel
Reeves " "We're kind of being trained to be warriors, only in a much
funner way." =A0 -- Jesus Camp participant, age ~9 Dave
Morris cell: 734-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-19--875026266--
|
