SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (6416)10/11/2002 4:06:03 PM
From: X Y Zebra  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 57110
 
Princeton professor Daniel Kahneman is unique in the long string of Nobel Prize winners in economics -- he is a psychologist. His path-breaking research was actually a collaborative effort with the late Amos Tversky, a renowned psychologist from Stanford who is generally credited as the father of behavioral finance/economics. More than 30 years ago, Tversky and Kahneman first started to question the wisdom of textbook theories of individual economic behavior. They conducted a series of controlled experiments, some of which were aimed at sampling investor responses to hypothetical and actual financial market situations. (The co-winner in this year’s Nobel Prize is Vernon Smith, who wrote the book on experimental economics).

You know...

I do not pretend to compare myself with the above laureate... not even close... that is NOT the point.

However, long ago, I told my economics professor that I thought the science of economics would serve itself best if it were to be considered an art, (the black kind). More, I told him that economics professors ought to take some lessons in voodoo and no question this would open their eyes to my views.

Of course, the man thought I was a lunatic and wondered why would I be studying economics in the first place. [--that was a long time ago-- ah yes, the things I had to do in order to do what I really wanted to do, -lol... but that is another story.]

My point was that how could economists trumpet with such assured fashion what would happen when the human element influenced the outcome of many of their "predictions", without even considering such aspect in their equations. (they always said they did, but i never believed them)

Since then, I abandoned the original idea of studying economics for a lot more exciting pursuits (of this, I am certain), AND more to the point, laughed at and made fun of economists (actually their predictions.) with increasing success -g

The wining of the Nobel prize by a PSYCHOLOGIST (of all people... not even a PSYCHIATRIST --LOL)(*) feels to me like a vindication for the ridicule I received from my professor's sneering looks. HA !

In my opinion, the combination of these two theories sends an unmistakable message: The carnage of a popped equity bubble spells a major adjustment for the saving-short American consumer. It’s just a matter of when. Theories often suffer from the standpoint of timing -- they do fine in predicting the endgame but are often lacking in pinpointing the moment of adjustment. That lesson is equally important today.

Don't I know it....! I was talking earlier about my theories being good, yet my timing stinks.

I have my own theories as to what will happen next... but as experience has taught me... the theories are best kept to one's own musings and spare others of my "predictions" [without forgetting the fate that economists often suffer... --being wrong and laughed at] LOL

Thank you for that article !

(*) Needless to say, I do not buy much into the black magic of Psychotherapy or Psychiatrists... at best, I agree with Mencken's definition:

Psychotherapy: The theory that the patient will probably get well anyhow, and is certainly a damned fool.

At worst... I think those guys are evil... dispensing drugs at will, [which side effects are not quite well known], to an already crazy and drugged-out audience -LOL

...but that... is too another story. -g