On 4 Jan 2009, at 21:13, Dan M wrote: > > I don't differ with Tetlock's essential findings: the pronouncements > of most > professional pundits in the areas of economics or geopolitics are > less than > worthless. I've seen separate documentation that, if you use a > broker, you > will, on average, do slightly worse than simply investing in a broad > based > index fund.
Since fund managers charge hefty fees and perform no better than chance on average a simple tracker is bound to do better. > > > However, having said that, I think that the implications of his work > might > lead one to overstate the case; to state that there is no worth in > studying > or trying to understand finance or geopolitics. The former has been > argued > extensively here, so let me go to the latter. What kind of 'expert' can make predictions no better than a coin toss? It seems despite their jargon and ability to 'explain' things with hindsight that their knowledge is akin to astrology or Freudian analysis. It seems to me that a lot of very smart people are rationalising their belief in the modern equivalent of alchemy. Which Isaac Newton wasted a lot of time on in his day. And lost his shirt in the Tulip bubble. Imaginary Patterns Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [email protected] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "I embraced OS X as soon as it was available and have never looked back." - Neal Stephenson _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
