In a message dated 1/30/03 8:30:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Thanks for the accurate data. Elsewhere, I have read that the pre-war
>baby
>
>bust began in the mid-1920's--before the great depression--and so could
>not
>
>have been entirely a result of the difficult times of the '30's. If i
Thanks for the accurate data. Elsewhere, I have read that the pre-war baby
bust began in the mid-1920's--before the great depression--and so could not
have been entirely a result of the difficult times of the '30's. If it
isn't too much trouble, can you either confirm or disconfirm this
claim?~A
EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Anton Sherwood
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bubblemania
Alypius Skinner wrote:
> . . . . It became
> obvious to me fairly early in the '90's that resentment against US
>
In a message dated 1/26/03 8:02:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>(demographically, the boom began in 1943)
The fertility rate (measured per 1000 women) in 1943 barely exceeded that of
1942 (2,718 v. 2,628), follwed by declines in 1944 (2,568) and 1945 (2,491),
only a bit higher than the rates
Alypius Skinner wrote:
. . . . It became
obvious to me fairly early in the '90's that resentment against US foreign
policy had made Americans overseas the preferred target of terrorists.
Not in the Seventies?
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
another round of "anti-Semitism" accusations from the usual crowd), but the
article did not say whether the anniversary was according to the Gregorian
solar or Islamic lunar calendar. At any rate, the market should have been
factoring in the danger, but it wasn't. It was priced for per
Do the math. I doubt that any conceivable expansion of the military that would be
appropriate in these circumstances could have any effect on the market at all. - - Bill
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/25/03 09:35PM >>>
William Dickens wrote:
> >>>I don't think so. I would argue that you couldn't expla
William Dickens wrote:
> >>>I don't think so. I would argue that you couldn't explain more than a 1 or 2%
>change in PV of future earnings as a result of 9/11 related events and that would be
>stretching.
Why is that such a stretch? Isn't there a significant possibility that
the ultimate effe
> 2) For that matter, what combination of events could have provided information that
>would lead one to conclude that the PV of future income streams would be 40% lower in
>July of last year than it was thought to be in July of 2000? It was a bubble.
>Financial markets aren't fully efficient. L
> How does one figure out discount for things
> like earthquakes, terrorism or other "disasters"?
> Fabio
Where the probabilities are unknown, there is uncertainty rather than
insurable risk, and such chances are like many other uncertainties that
entrepreneurship necessarily deals with.
One eit
William Dickens wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Alex Bryan. Here is a graph of the S&P 500
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPX&d=c&t=5y&l=on&z=b&q=l
>
> About a third of the drop occurred before 9/11, a third occurred immediately after
>9/11, and the other 2/3rds occurred in the first half of
> Koushik Sekhar wrote:
> > Should markets be priced assuming that nothing will go wrong ("random
> > shocks") or should markets be priced assuming that something will go wrong ?
> Neither, obviously. Prices should reflect expected values - in this
> case, disasters discounted by their probabili
I have to agree with Alex Bryan. Here is a graph of the S&P 500
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPX&d=c&t=5y&l=on&z=b&q=l
About a third of the drop occurred before 9/11, a third occurred immediately after
9/11, and the other 2/3rds occurred in the first half of last year. Why 4/3rds?
Because mos
Alex T Tabarrok wrote:
>
> Bryan D Caplan wrote:
>
> >Another annoying thing about the "I told you there was a bubble" people
> >is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed to the
> >9/11 attacks (more specifically, indirect effects via policy changes).
> >If ever there were
Koushik Sekhar wrote:
>
> Should markets be priced assuming that nothing will go wrong ("random
> shocks") or should markets be priced assuming that something will go wrong ?
Neither, obviously. Prices should reflect expected values - in this
case, disasters discounted by their probabilities.
-
Bryan D Caplan wrote:
Another annoying thing about the "I told you there was a bubble" people
is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed to the
9/11 attacks (more specifically, indirect effects via policy changes).
If ever there were a random shock, it was 9/11.
Shame on
> Should markets be priced assuming that nothing will go wrong ("random
When you say, "should markets be priced", I guess that you really mean,
"should buyers prefer or insist on buying at prices", and "should
sellers prefer or insist on selling at prices".
> IF that be so, shouldnt markets facto
: "Bryan D Caplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:19 PM
Subject: Bubblemania
> Another annoying thing about the "I told you there was a bubble" people
> is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed t
Another annoying thing about the "I told you there was a bubble" people
is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed to the
9/11 attacks (more specifically, indirect effects via policy changes).
If ever there were a random shock, it was 9/11.
--
Prof. B
19 matches
Mail list logo
