The Economist responds to economist Eugene Fama, who said:
I didn't renew my subscription to The Economist because they use the world bubble three times on every page.
The Economist:
Obviously, we are disappointed to have lost Mr Fama's business. But I can't say we regret the cause.UPDATE: An Economist correspondent notes that as a die-hard believer in the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, Mr Fama is actually being quite rational in cancelling his subscription. As all publicly available information is already reflected in market prices, there's not much point in trying to learn anything from our paper.
Heh.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Can markets predict elections? Alea summarizes last night's primary results: Ooops! From my perspective, I find the ideas of markets predicting future events fascinating, if for no other reason than my original motivation for studying physics was tied up deeply in questions about predicting the…
If you haven't read Paul Krugman's recent NY Times Magazine article "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?", I recommend it highly. One of the interesting things about Krugman is that he has been talking about this issue for over a decade. In a 1996 lecture, he presented an argument that economics…
The WSJ has a fascinating article on the economics of bubbles and why it might be rational to support a bubble until it bursts:
Bubbles often keep inflating despite cautions such as Mr. Greenspan's famous warning of "irrational exuberance." Tech stocks rose for more than three years after he said…
A recent column by Dan Arielly gives me a reason to discuss what I think are some of the problems with the recent emphasis on irrationality in economic theory. Before I get into that, I should note that I liked Arielly's book Predictably Irrational, and am impressed by Shiller's work. The idea…