Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fear and insecurity" over the 1955 bull market
Brad De Long wrote: >Why is this a good unconventional measure? I would prefer the total >market capitalization of the S&P 500 divided by the companies' total >annual wage bill... Conceptually, the S&P 500 is the price of a share of blue-chip corporate America. So, dividing it by the average wage would tell you how long it would take for the average worker to buy a representative share of big U.S. capital. It's propagandistically nice for those of us who remember those charts of how long it would take a Soviet vs. a U.S. worker to buy a pair shoes. Speaking of which, it'd be interesting to see a chart of how long it'd take a Nike worker to buy a pair of Nike shoes. Doug
Re: Re: Re: "Fear and insecurity" over the 1955 bull market
Jim Devine wrote: > [*] if this research is accurate, it seems prima facie proof that people > are irrational. It proves that people often/usually reach irrational *conclusions*. It offers no evidence one way or the other as to (a) whether the process by which they reached the conclusions was irrational or (b) whether they are irrational. In at least one way people are like computers: GIGO. And most of us have very little control over what comes in. It is this lack of control over input that creates all the illusions which ground such superstitions as psychoanalysis, astrology, conspiracy theories, etc. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: "Fear and insecurity" over the 1955 bull market
>When I first studied econ. in the 1950s, it was an article of faith that wages >would move with productivity. Now, economists still try to maintain that >tradition by appealing to "unobserved factors." according to neoclassical theory, wages should move with the marginal productivity of labor. Since the latter is generally unobservable and doesn't exist at the macroeconomic level, unobservability seems the rule, not the exception. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
