No, lots of economists don't. Especially considering how important of a problem it is. It's a "hot topic" because of public opinion at the moment. We have not been attacking it in new and creative ways for decades.
344 karma · joined February 5, 2019
Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors.
Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the currently dominant theory in your field (even if there has been no progress in decades).
Lots of other people have ideas about the same thing, so there is a product you can buy or sell to bet on it.
She asks her broker what price they can buy or sell it. The broker asks how much she wants and gives a price.
This conversation is so common that there is an agreed upon structure for it. Bloomberg parses all your conversations and provides you with an aggregated view of all quotes brokers have offered you. You can then chart/do whatever you want with this data.
...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate... [0]
The point is that there were a lot of climate models done in the 70's, and only a few of them were accurate. No one was randomly guessing, but the model you gave was not the consensus.
[0] https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-in...
One of the big things missed by all the articles covering share repurchases, is that they are increasing at a rate similar to company market cap. That shouldn't be too surprising. The real story is why is R&D not keeping up?
It's worth a read for a more nuanced view.
[0] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dcc3/e0d7288395c2891f1fee19...
Also, I've worked as a barista. My high paying tech job is waaaay easier.
My partner is a grade 2 teacher, and she covers a lot of this. Everything in learning skills, individual skills, social skills, and most of our world.
You probably just don't recognize it when it's taught at a level understandable to six year olds, or 14 year old. Before writing posts like this it's a good idea to go look at a your school board's curriculum. You'll likely be surprised how closely it matches this.
The remarkable thing is that it has been well known for decades, and continues to work. Many fortunes have been made by systematically exploiting it.
But your point stands. The paper has nothing to do with cognitive ability. So why is it being used as evidence?
> Stock market returns are lower on polluted days.
I don't want to dismiss the entire article, but I think this points to possibility that there is some bad statistics going on here. I don't see how daily stock returns are proof of, or even related to, cognitive ability on a daily basis.
This is exactly the type of finding you'd expect with p-hacking.
He did have about 10 years worth of poor-to-decent results running other hedge funds before he found real success with RenTech. So it's not like this all came out of nowhere.
A funny thing from the recent book: One of Rentech's earlier employees spent his first few months there trying to figure out what the scam was.
I do think that most companies log lots of data in different places without much thought or structure, and as a result need a "data scientist", who spends most of their time simply aggregating and cleaning data that can then easily be processed on a single machine. ie: they spend 10% of their time doing statistics.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the above is how all the data scientists that I know describe their work.
You have truly lost touch with average people if you think your situation is even close to normal.
> CLEARLY, Robinhood knows about the infinite leverage bug
This is the same company that offered FDIC insured savings and checking accounts, while not actually being covered by FDIC. They have always taken a move fast a break things approach, and then had to cover their asses when regulators step in.
Regarding the senate hearings, they were in 2014. Only the banks involved have paid any sort of penalty. In 2016 Simons and Robert Mercer each donated over 25 million to the Democrats and Republicans respectively. So that's not a huge surprise.
This has been studied now, and the data points strongly towards nature. Country's with a higher level of gender equality have more gender disparity in fields such as STEM, not less. The country's that have done the most to alleviate the issues you've mentioned have the lowest percentage of women engineers.
It was the exact opposite of what everyone thought would happen. These results were so unexpected that we called it the Gender-equality paradox.
She also works a lot more than 40 hour weeks and has to deal with some pretty intense stuff.