I just wonder why they put out that joke of a controller for Google TV, when they could have made a PS Move-like controller with a slide-out keyboard or similar.
automatic trading based on Black-Scholes acerbated the crash != the Black Scholes model contributed to the crash
Unrelatedly, is there anything wrong with, say, a mortgage-backed security accurately priced according to a particular model, so long as the limitations of the particular model's assumptions are properly understood? This applies to any model in economics or finance. All are obviously just simplifications of reality.
The technical assumptions of a mathematical model should not be blamed for the actions of ignorant or reckless investors.
I really wouldn't take an article seriously if it partially blames the '87 stock market crash on Black-Scholes (basic model for pricing European options). That makes literally zero sense.
What leads you to believe that Verizon or any other carrier wants to become a dumb pipe?? A decade of contrary statements to the press suggests otherwise.
Remember that Google recently hired Matias Duarte from Palm, who headed the UI design of webOS. These subtle revisions aiming towards design consistency and taking the ugly out of Android, if true, are very promising.
Yes, but they're pushing this as an open browser standard for all web app stores. It'll be interesting to see Google's response to this, as well as how DRM potentially works in both implementations.
Oh, really? You're actually making the opposite argument: divided technical leadership is what drove most progress in personal computing. Unless you yearn for the days of the IBM mainframe...
The Economics of the Microsoft Case, by perhaps the best technology economist there is, Timothy Bresnahan of Stanford:
You can blame people like Larry Summers, who advocated shock therapy when he was Chief Economist of the World Bank, devastating the economic potential of the former Soviet bloc.
I used to be big on microcredit, until I realized it isn't actually profitable (as is claimed).
The vast majority of funding for microcredit organizations comes from government. It's still charity, even if it can often be fairly efficient charity.
Microsoft brazenly, fiercely ignored antitrust law. There's endless evidence in court on their attempts to illegally block the adoption of Java and Netscape Navigator. They were found guilty in U.S. v. Microsoft. And every web developer knows how much damage IE6 did to the progress of the internet. Gates' fortune is unquestionably tainted.
That said, the majority of economists would probably more or less agree with Slim. Buffett, Gates, and Slim could amass wealth faster than pretty much anyone else on earth. Just leaving the money invested in the global economy is not a priori worse than giving it all to charity. Compound growth is obviously self-sustaining growth. The HOPE is that charity can do the same.
Giving away tens of billions of dollars is an ENORMOUS informational problem. Good luck allocating it all even the least bit efficiently. The real answer is that no one can possibly know what the best use of all that money is.
What would I do with the money? Probably put it all in a Vanguard Total Market fund, or the closest fund imitating the true world economy.