Shane writes: > But isn't the "fad- and bubble-prone stock market" the empirical *consensus* > of the various "fad- and bubble-prone" "experts in guessing returns years > into the future" who make up the stock market?
It's a consensus that's clearly subject to the distorting effects of group-think. As we've seen, this can lead to group madness. > While reproduction-cost is a definite, meaningful economic reality? I agree that this number is much easier to measure. But I wasn't rejecting Tobin's Q as much as suggesting the possibility that another measure might also be useful. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
