171–180 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter-data: Paris Hilton.
Not sure if this proves or disproves anything, but there are rumours she's a vintage radio enthusiast http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/the-truth-is-out-there
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People said the same thing about George W. Bush. We have yet to see any evidence for that assertion, both for him and Hilton. GWB got a SAT mark that implies a IQ over 130. While he certainly liked to play the fool for his audience, I saw no evidence that he was stupid, just totally corrupt. >Quite a bold claim. I'd like to see a citation. Any trait that has more than a few hundred genes influencing it will be norma…
>>GWB got a SAT mark that implies a IQ over 130. Huh? He scored 566 on verbal and 640 on math for a total of 1206 points -- around 140 points below his Yale classmates. I'm not sure how this implies an IQ of over 130, unless you believe that Yale is attended by pure geniuses (hint: it isn't). Furthermore, both SAT and IQ scores are highly correlated with the quality of education one receives. They don't measure innat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>GWB got a SAT mark that implies a IQ over 130. Huh? He scored 566 on verbal and 640 on math for a total of 1206 points -- around 140 points below his Yale classmates. I'm not sure how this implies an IQ of over 130, unless you believe that Yale is attended by pure geniuses (hint: it isn't). Furthermore, both SAT and IQ scores are highly correlated with the quality of education one receives. They don't measure innat…
The better the quality of your education, the greater the influence of genetics on your IQ score. At least, that was my understanding of the WP article, which says poor environment means poor heritability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of money is completely determined by fed actions and allowing it to drift in detrimental value paths would be the farthest thing from respecting the markets. Economy wide "malinvestment" is not a thing. It entails that a person living off of others is more productive than a person working. It's nonsense. Although money should be just an intermediary tool for trade and negotiation, an artificial asset that i…
Isn't the value of bonds, which are essentially debt denominated in the fiat currency, intrinsically linked to the value of that currency? Debt isn't an independent store of value in the same way that equity or real property is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be new here. There's a sizable cadre of IQ score worshipping neo-eugenicists around here. More people need to actually study evolutionary biology. Like I mean the real kind with math and combinatorics and stuff. Or maybe I'm just a stupid head.
I think you might mean population genetics, not evolutionary biology. If you study population genetics you might discover what results from assortative mating.
Is a bit like saying not to study mathematics because you actually need calculus.
This article doesn't answer the question and seems primary based on nostalgia. My theory: the Fed's zero interest rate policy is very good at inflating asset values: S&P500, housing, you name it. Rising income is a second-order effect: we hope that rising asset values will lead to increased wages. That used to be the case, but no longer is. Why? Because of automation and globalization probably. So, the Fed has the pe…
This is not a bug it is a feature. The rich are a lot smarter today than when they were the descendants of feudal landlords - 100 years of meritocracy combined with assortative mating makes for a very clever ruling class. Edit. Spelling.
Secondly, where's your evidence? Your statement seems to be total conjecture.
The money quotes: "If house prices fall, the middle aged and middle class will be in an uproar. [...] Perhaps even more critically, banks need house prices to rise, or at least not collapse." "More quality housing would increase its stock, and with supply rising to meet demand, prices would fall. This would be great for young renters, bad for middle-aged property owners, bad for banks. Thus it is not likely to happen…
Then, find the best investment for that, whether property or something else.
That's the solution.
Worth noting the decline in how much is spent on food: in 1950 it was a third of household income, now it's 13%. So part of the cost of living has drastically decreased.
Almost all sectors of the economy have delivered much improved value since 1950. In many cases at reduced cost. Real estate, education and medical care are subsidized. When you subsidize something, they cost more and you get more of it. So we constrain residential real estate development by regulation - zoning, permitting.
Energy and housing - increasingly micro controlled to a fine detail, both spiralling ever upwards way in front of inflation.
Healthcare: massively regulated, increased costs.
Hiring people : massively regulated, increased costs (for the buyer) result : less buyers meaning less employment.
The problem is clearly excessive regulation but any problem is immediately met with calls for more regulation.
Until this becomes so incredibly clear that people can no longer deny it - it will just go on and on.
TL;DR We vote and so politicians listen to our desires. Falling house prices would be a boon for renters and first-time buyers (and probably for society at large), but their political clout is less than that of middle-aged, middle-class property owners. Link baity article with no real "answer". Rents and house prices follow simple supply and demand over long term. Cities are either already saturated or don't allow ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's another solution: Respect the wisdom of markets. Allow corrections to take place and don't bury malinvestment under the rug only for it rear it's ugly head worse later on by acting as if you have a better intuition on what the price of money should be. Most people accept the virtue of free markets. Yet many don't see that the actions the Fed has been taking destroys the concept of a market by artificially supp…
The value of money is completely determined by fed actions and allowing it to drift in detrimental value paths would be the farthest thing from respecting the markets. Economy wide "malinvestment" is not a thing. It entails that a person living off of others is more productive than a person working. It's nonsense. Although money should be just an intermediary tool for trade and negotiation, an artificial asset that i…
At microeconomics malinvestiment happens all the time, and you do want it to fail. Otherwise we'd be still sending typewriter created letters though horsemail.
Now, you are proposing that at the macro-level it does not exist? How is it so? Is malinvestiment one of those things that cancel-out at the macro level? If so, that would be huge, it would be the first real (not nominal) value ever to cancel-out at the macro-level. So, I'll have to ask for your references.