Comment Re:Random does not neet to be a random walk (Score 1) 184
I think Mandelbrot came up with this decades ago.
Yeah, but most economists never read Mandelbrot. His economic research is very interesting but pretty much unheard of.
I think Mandelbrot came up with this decades ago.
Yeah, but most economists never read Mandelbrot. His economic research is very interesting but pretty much unheard of.
Various economists argue that the efficiency of a market ought to be clearly evident in the returns it produces. They say that the more efficient it is, the more random its returns will be and a perfect market should be completely random.
I'd really like to see a citation for this. I've studied a fair deal of economics in my day, and I don't remember anything even like a claim that a perfect market is completely random. Maybe I just studied the wrong (or maybe right, in this case) economics, but I can't think of any theoretical foundation for that.
If anyone can point me in the direction of real research on this, I'm very interested.
All they are saying is that they noted Correlation, not implying causation.
Yet the summary is written as such. Such a shock for a
No, it doesn't. The summary says "more likely"; that is, as internet use increases, the probability of depression increases. That is the definition of correlation. Implying causation would be using a word like "cause". (I know, tricky concept) Which the summary doesn't.
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.