That's an astonishing accomplishment.
https://t.co/uopG6WutzU
1/Today in @bopinion, I talk about the legacy and career of Jim Simons, the founder of Renaissance Technologies, who is stepping down as the hedge fund's
That's an astonishing accomplishment.
https://t.co/uopG6WutzU
Basically, by being relentlessly smarter and better-managed than the competition.
https://t.co/p6ZTd7POfQ
Yes and no.
Obviously yes, since Renaissance could (and can) beat the market. But there are a few key caveats...
But most investors can't invest in that fund. It doesn't take your money.
https://t.co/sTXUzl09Lc
https://t.co/bhqE71eSdH
If it did, Medallion would be worth far more than all the rest of the hedge funds in the world combined, by now!
Why? Because the market inefficiencies Medallion exploits are limited in size. And thus, Medallion's profit opportunities are limited in size.
https://t.co/ZsXQ4NNUI8
This shows that consistently beating the market AT SCALE is incredibly hard, even for the smartest and best-managed people on the planet.
https://t.co/oowJd3k8GH
But it does mean that Renaissance's existence doesn't prove that stock markets are inefficient. Indeed it shows us just how not-so-hugely-inefficient they are!
(end)
https://t.co/uopG6WutzU
More from Noahtogolpe 🐇
This thread demonstrates that a lot of academic writing that *looks* like utter nonsense is merely scholars dressing up a useful but mundane point with a ton of unnecessary jargon.
My theory is that the jargon creates an artificial barrier to entry. https://t.co/MqLyyppdHl
If one must spend years marinating one's brain in jargon to be perceived as an expert on a topic, it protects the status and earning power of people who study relatively easy topics.
In econ, a similar thing is accomplished by what recent Nobel prize winner Paul Romer calls "mathiness": https://t.co/DBCRRc8Mir
But mathiness and jargon are not quite the same...
Jargon usually doesn't force you to change the substance of your central point.
Mathiness often does. By forcing you to write your model in a way that's mathematically tractable (easy to work with), mathiness often impoverishes your understanding of how the world really works.
has written about this problem:
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
My theory is that the jargon creates an artificial barrier to entry. https://t.co/MqLyyppdHl
If one must spend years marinating one's brain in jargon to be perceived as an expert on a topic, it protects the status and earning power of people who study relatively easy topics.
In econ, a similar thing is accomplished by what recent Nobel prize winner Paul Romer calls "mathiness": https://t.co/DBCRRc8Mir
But mathiness and jargon are not quite the same...
Jargon usually doesn't force you to change the substance of your central point.
Mathiness often does. By forcing you to write your model in a way that's mathematically tractable (easy to work with), mathiness often impoverishes your understanding of how the world really works.
has written about this problem:
Time for panel #3: Big Tech and regulation!
I will be live-tweeting again, and you can also watch video at either the Twitter or Facebook links below!
Kaissar: Every industry gets regulated when it gets big. The question is what kind of regulation Big Tech will get,and whether the companies will be proactive in shaping it.
Kaissar: More profitable companies have higher returns. Why? Maybe it's a risk factor, because more profit = higher risk of getting regulated.
Bershidskyis showing a diagram of GDPR complaince pop-ups. What a massive ill-conceived bureaucratic mess.
Ritholtz: It's 2018 and we're still talking about Facebook privacy settings?! If you're still giving your personal data to Facebook, you just don't care about privacy!
I will be live-tweeting again, and you can also watch video at either the Twitter or Facebook links below!
Bloomberg Ideas conference now starting! I will be live-tweeting it. You can watch on our Facebook or Twitter pages (links below)! https://t.co/Mbr9dZzWBy
— Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) October 25, 2018
Kaissar: Every industry gets regulated when it gets big. The question is what kind of regulation Big Tech will get,and whether the companies will be proactive in shaping it.
Kaissar: More profitable companies have higher returns. Why? Maybe it's a risk factor, because more profit = higher risk of getting regulated.
Bershidskyis showing a diagram of GDPR complaince pop-ups. What a massive ill-conceived bureaucratic mess.
Ritholtz: It's 2018 and we're still talking about Facebook privacy settings?! If you're still giving your personal data to Facebook, you just don't care about privacy!
1/I'm thinking about the end of Apu in the context of the national debates on immigration and diversity.
2/Apu's presence in Springfield represented a basic reality of America in the late 20th and early 21st century: the presence of nonwhite immigrants.
3/As Tomas Jimenez writes in "The Other Side of Assimilation", for my generation, immigrants from India, China, Mexico, and many other countries aren't strange or foreign. On the contrary, they're a
4/But that America I grew up with is fundamentally ephemeral. The kids of immigrants don't retain their parents' culture. They merge into the local culture (and, as Jimenez documents, the local culture changes to reflect their influence).
5/Simpsons character don't change. But real people, and real communities, do. So a character who once represented the diversity that immigrants brought to American towns now represents a stereotype of Indian-Americans as "permanent foreigners".
\u2018The Simpsons\u2019 producer confirms Apu is being written out of show following controversy https://t.co/lKzFCe1wFa pic.twitter.com/s34IUDUtqs
— NME (@NME) October 26, 2018
2/Apu's presence in Springfield represented a basic reality of America in the late 20th and early 21st century: the presence of nonwhite immigrants.
3/As Tomas Jimenez writes in "The Other Side of Assimilation", for my generation, immigrants from India, China, Mexico, and many other countries aren't strange or foreign. On the contrary, they're a
4/But that America I grew up with is fundamentally ephemeral. The kids of immigrants don't retain their parents' culture. They merge into the local culture (and, as Jimenez documents, the local culture changes to reflect their influence).
5/Simpsons character don't change. But real people, and real communities, do. So a character who once represented the diversity that immigrants brought to American towns now represents a stereotype of Indian-Americans as "permanent foreigners".
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
More from Government
They shouldn't be.
The pattern is:
GOP in power - GOP dictates policy
Dems in power - GOP dictates policy
The Dems shouldn't legislate toward the GOP.
The GOP doesn't represent its constituents.
The GOP can push it's agenda on its own time.
If Dems push an agenda that actually helps people, it'll also actually help the GOP constituency.
The GOP won't. So give them nothing.
The Dems should ignore the GOP just like the GOP ignores the Dems.
Make them pay for every moment of obstruction.
Just a hard press on legislation that is unassailable and shine a light on the GOP.
Constant. Relentless. Unyielding.
Shut them out and shut them down.
The GOP is not a legitimate political party. It is an anti-democratic, fascist criminal syndicate with no interest whatsoever in governance.
Nobody should give them the slightest bit of credit or legitimacy ever again.
Not a fucking ounce.
Nobody should engage them in legitimate debate in Congress.
They should be pariahs and treated as unserious occupants of Congress.
Because these people were totally ok with their colleagues being killed in furtherance of the destruction of the insitution.
The pattern is:
GOP in power - GOP dictates policy
Dems in power - GOP dictates policy
Soooooooo what\u2019s the problem. The statement I responded to read as it they haven\u2019t been trying to work together.. but they have so..?
— Othello (@BurberryKid11) February 2, 2021
The Dems shouldn't legislate toward the GOP.
The GOP doesn't represent its constituents.
The GOP can push it's agenda on its own time.
If Dems push an agenda that actually helps people, it'll also actually help the GOP constituency.
The GOP won't. So give them nothing.
The Dems should ignore the GOP just like the GOP ignores the Dems.
Make them pay for every moment of obstruction.
Just a hard press on legislation that is unassailable and shine a light on the GOP.
Constant. Relentless. Unyielding.
Shut them out and shut them down.
The GOP is not a legitimate political party. It is an anti-democratic, fascist criminal syndicate with no interest whatsoever in governance.
Nobody should give them the slightest bit of credit or legitimacy ever again.
Not a fucking ounce.
Nobody should engage them in legitimate debate in Congress.
They should be pariahs and treated as unserious occupants of Congress.
Because these people were totally ok with their colleagues being killed in furtherance of the destruction of the insitution.
