I knew Philip Morrison, he was a friend of mine. I had dinner at his house many times. He was a kindly and generous man who would provide a letter of introduction for all sorts of people who might be right. He was not an economist. So his slight endorsement in 1995 doesn’t cut much ice with me.
You’re arguing that indexed loans are better for both borrowers and lender, right? If that were true, people would have noticed, and they would be standard. I’m not aware of any legal or practical restriction on them. Inflation-adjusted treasury bills have been available for years, and are only a minor part of the market. So I can follow Bayes’ Rule: if you were right, things would be different, so you’re wrong. I don’t have to spot the exact place where your argument goes wrong to know it’s wrong somewhere.
I liked Morrison; only met him twice. His small television was fringed with orange pop-poms like a Hindu shrine; I wondered it that was a satirical comment.
Is the Bayesian proof dented by the fact that Chile exists? Robert Shiller, in a 2009 advocacy piece aimed at the British public entitled The Case for a Basket, says
The UF is used in Chile for nearly all mortgages, car loans, and long-term government securities. All taxes are expressed in UFs. Pension payments are automatically tied to the UF. Executive stock options sometimes have strike prices denominated in UFs. The UF is widely used for rent payments. Alimony and child support payments are often denominated in UFs. Office properties for sale are usually quoted in UFs. Houses for sale are often quoted in UFs, though pesos are also used
Did you read “Thumbs up from 3 Nobelists” in the mortgage post? That’s a phenomenon that demands an explanation.
His small television was fringed with orange pop-poms like a Hindu shrine; I wondered it that was a satirical comment.
The pom-poms were part of a puppet-stage proscenium with curtains that his wife Phyllis built, and placed around the TV. The curtains could be drawn when the TV was off so they didn’t have to look at it. Phyllis was a great person; full of wisdom, lively interest and wacky schemes. Like a grown-up manic pixie dream girl.
That they’re common in Chile is even more evidence that you’re wrong that inflation-indexed loans are a good idea in America. Chileans have lots of experience with them, and that experience would easily move between the countries if there were a market for it here in America. So there must be some difference in economic conditions between the countries that makes them undesirable here. The motion that they are not used here because nobody is aware of them becomes even more absurd.
Sorry, I’ll believe millions of people in the loan business before I’ll believe cherry-picked quotations from three Nobel prize winners. If it was a good idea it would be more common.
All it would take is one good argument at the level of mechanism: what is good—nay, better—about a ruler that shrinks by a factor of 6 in 50 years? Mechanism—not faith that someone else must know about mechanism. An actual grounded reason.
Also—what is better about reducing borrowing power by a third? Check out my 75-year graph. Simple concept: borrowing power with and without indexing. Generate your own graph, if you doubt mine; it’s not very hard. Mechanism, not hearsay. Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
So you’re saying my observation of facts is insufficient, I need an abstract argument to convince you? Fortunately, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to convince the audience.
Did you read “Thumbs up from 3 Nobelists” in the mortgage post?
Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
I knew Philip Morrison, he was a friend of mine. I had dinner at his house many times. He was a kindly and generous man who would provide a letter of introduction for all sorts of people who might be right. He was not an economist. So his slight endorsement in 1995 doesn’t cut much ice with me.
You’re arguing that indexed loans are better for both borrowers and lender, right? If that were true, people would have noticed, and they would be standard. I’m not aware of any legal or practical restriction on them. Inflation-adjusted treasury bills have been available for years, and are only a minor part of the market. So I can follow Bayes’ Rule: if you were right, things would be different, so you’re wrong. I don’t have to spot the exact place where your argument goes wrong to know it’s wrong somewhere.
I liked Morrison; only met him twice. His small television was fringed with orange pop-poms like a Hindu shrine; I wondered it that was a satirical comment.
Is the Bayesian proof dented by the fact that Chile exists? Robert Shiller, in a 2009 advocacy piece aimed at the British public entitled The Case for a Basket, says
The UF is used in Chile for nearly all mortgages, car loans, and long-term government securities. All taxes are expressed in UFs. Pension payments are automatically tied to the UF. Executive stock options sometimes have strike prices denominated in UFs. The UF is widely used for rent payments. Alimony and child support payments are often denominated in UFs. Office properties for sale are usually quoted in UFs. Houses for sale are often quoted in UFs, though pesos are also used
Did you read “Thumbs up from 3 Nobelists” in the mortgage post? That’s a phenomenon that demands an explanation.
The pom-poms were part of a puppet-stage proscenium with curtains that his wife Phyllis built, and placed around the TV. The curtains could be drawn when the TV was off so they didn’t have to look at it. Phyllis was a great person; full of wisdom, lively interest and wacky schemes. Like a grown-up manic pixie dream girl.
That they’re common in Chile is even more evidence that you’re wrong that inflation-indexed loans are a good idea in America. Chileans have lots of experience with them, and that experience would easily move between the countries if there were a market for it here in America. So there must be some difference in economic conditions between the countries that makes them undesirable here. The motion that they are not used here because nobody is aware of them becomes even more absurd.
Sorry, I’ll believe millions of people in the loan business before I’ll believe cherry-picked quotations from three Nobel prize winners. If it was a good idea it would be more common.
All it would take is one good argument at the level of mechanism: what is good—nay, better—about a ruler that shrinks by a factor of 6 in 50 years? Mechanism—not faith that someone else must know about mechanism. An actual grounded reason.
Also—what is better about reducing borrowing power by a third? Check out my 75-year graph. Simple concept: borrowing power with and without indexing. Generate your own graph, if you doubt mine; it’s not very hard. Mechanism, not hearsay. Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
So you’re saying my observation of facts is insufficient, I need an abstract argument to convince you? Fortunately, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to convince the audience.
Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
But an appropriate response to someone who relies on it.