Alaska Darin Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 LA Times Article Several of them concede that they have significant portions of their nest eggs in money market accounts, some of the lowest-returning investment vehicles available. "I know it's utterly stupid," confessed George A. Akerlof, a UC Berkeley professor and 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. "I think very little about my retirement savings, because I know that thinking could make me poorer or more miserable or both," quipped 2002 Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University. Amazing. Utterly stupifying. The award seems much less prestigious now.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 LA Times Article Several of them concede that they have significant portions of their nest eggs in money market accounts, some of the lowest-returning investment vehicles available. "I know it's utterly stupid," confessed George A. Akerlof, a UC Berkeley professor and 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. "I think very little about my retirement savings, because I know that thinking could make me poorer or more miserable or both," quipped 2002 Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University. Amazing. Utterly stupifying. The award seems much less prestigious now. 334119[/snapback] "Ask five economists a question and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard." Though what really convinced me that most economists were generally useless was the realization that any economist that actually knew something about the economy would be wealthy many times over and retired by now. By definition, since an economist with a clue should rightfully be a "former economist", it follows that a practicing economist probably doesn't have much of a clue.
Alaska Darin Posted May 11, 2005 Author Posted May 11, 2005 "Ask five economists a question and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard." Though what really convinced me that most economists were generally useless was the realization that any economist that actually knew something about the economy would be wealthy many times over and retired by now. By definition, since an economist with a clue should rightfully be a "former economist", it follows that a practicing economist probably doesn't have much of a clue. 334125[/snapback] I guess. It's amazing to me that people who do this as a profession would have the lion's share of their "portfolio" in an "investment" that has traditionally TRAILED inflation. Might as well spend it now. Yeah, let's give them the bully pulpit.
TristanFabriani Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 "Ask five economists a question and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard." Though what really convinced me that most economists were generally useless was the realization that any economist that actually knew something about the economy would be wealthy many times over and retired by now. By definition, since an economist with a clue should rightfully be a "former economist", it follows that a practicing economist probably doesn't have much of a clue. 334125[/snapback] Fortunately we have you and Alaska to tell us the truth about investing. And please, tell us what you will invest in for the next year. If you are going to trash Nobel economists, then put your own predictions on the line...
UConn James Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 -A brain surgeon whose patient dies of a blot clot on the operating table. -A psychologist who has a crazy wife or is crazy as a loon himself. -A celebrity show host who regularly reports on the shortfalls/sins of Hollywood and who should know better who enters rehab and has copies of his phone calls to hookers all over the Web. -A pope who truly, purely loved the youth of the world who couldn't protect altar boys by forcefully standing up to his own priests and cardinals, demanding some butt. .... There are probably better analogies than these to this specific topic, but the backhand of irony isn't reserved exclusively for these guys, that's for sure.
Dave in VA Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 LA Times Article Several of them concede that they have significant portions of their nest eggs in money market accounts, some of the lowest-returning investment vehicles available. "I know it's utterly stupid," confessed George A. Akerlof, a UC Berkeley professor and 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. "I think very little about my retirement savings, because I know that thinking could make me poorer or more miserable or both," quipped 2002 Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University. Amazing. Utterly stupifying. The award seems much less prestigious now. 334119[/snapback] Just think, if his retirement savings were in the stock market, he'd be even further behind now.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 "Ask five economists a question and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard." Though what really convinced me that most economists were generally useless was the realization that any economist that actually knew something about the economy would be wealthy many times over and retired by now. By definition, since an economist with a clue should rightfully be a "former economist", it follows that a practicing economist probably doesn't have much of a clue. 334125[/snapback] The word economist, IMO, always invoked the image of an extremely frugal guy with black glasses and pocket protector... Kind of your computer geek before there were computer geeks?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 I guess there is an archaic meaning: 1 archaic : one who practices economy Economy: 2 a : thrifty and efficient use of material resources : frugality in expenditures; also : an instance or a means of economizing : SAVING b : efficient and concise use of nonmaterial resources (as effort, language, or motion) I never thought of it as a guy making a lot of money quick... Just one that saved very conservative and lost little. ????? I just don't think of them as money makers. Just safe players.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Fortunately we have you and Alaska to tell us the truth about investing. And please, tell us what you will invest in for the next year. If you are going to trash Nobel economists, then put your own predictions on the line... 334210[/snapback] I don't have predictions. Know why? Because I'm not stupid enough to think the economy's predictable. Which makes me smarter than most Nobel laureate economists...
clumping platelets Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 As an Economics major, there are too many variables to consider. Especially in a global economy. This is why each economist will have a different outlook or answer.
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Author Posted May 12, 2005 Just think, if his retirement savings were in the stock market, he'd be even further behind now. 334383[/snapback] What exactly do you mean?
Recommended Posts