MIT Blackjack Team sounds impressive, misses fundamentals.
An excerpt:
The only solution is to forbid money management as we know it. We could certainly have people like Warren Buffet manage investors’ money alongside their own, with no additional percent-based compensation beyond their own investment gains. But we must remove the incentive to create Martingales, and protect people from their own intuitive desire to move their money into the funds which generate out-sized returns, without understanding the long term risks which create them.
Another excerpt:
In our globalized free market world, almost everyone is ultimately an investor, whether by owning a house or merely holding a job in a company which depends on access to capital. The scope of the current bailout has reached the point of real danger. We must fix the underlying problem before doubling down again as a society, or risk going the way of Albania.
The article sounds intelligent, poignent and trustworthy, but the first sentence in the second excerpt tells me someone is misguided regarding their definitions.
I’m not sure what to make of it, but the discussion it has generated on reddit is interesting, especially the first comment.
When I read stuff like the article and the first comment on reddit I think, “Sure, it sounds impressive, and no, I don’t understand the details, but I don’t think I need to. Why? Because it’s written within the framework of a statist mentality, and is therefore not worth my time trying to understand.”
That’s my view. How do you react when you read something involving the economy that sounds impressive but appears to be predicated on the notion that the state is good and necessary (or even a necessary evil)?