How does the mere fact that people predictably age, and so predictably reduce their appetite for risk, drive trading? How does this affect pricing of assets?
Why don’t the selectivity, hidden labour/training costs, and selection effect applied to picking out e.g. the medallion fund as a counterexample to the EMH not stop it from working as a counterexample?
With exploding (limited term) offers, people will often accept when they think theyre in the latest (i.e. The market theyll be the most informed in) thickest market theyre likely to be in. As more women go to college the latest thick dating market for men switched from HS to college, explaining the switch from people marrying younger/high school sweethearts to marrying college friends, to now marrying later still via online dating.
How might the various communities be worse at pushing people to their comparative adv than markets? Loose feedback? Prestige? Relevant to graham quote about progress = winning increasingly depends on being right. It should depend on being right in a comparatively advantageous way.
- Markets for talent
Why does not buying stocks of polluters just serve to lower the price, thereby increasing expected returns, while not buying chicken in the supermarket will actually reduce the amount of chicken being born and killed?