PhD in Economics

This was my exact reaction as well. The prop firms I’ve seen (the # is extremely limited) have mostly consisted of blue collared people making -$200 to +$800 daily. However, the prop guys making 3-15K daily have been the owners of the props and graduates of the best universities.

Years of school often teaches you how to think conceptually, which doesn't work when applied to the markets. I think this is why some people believe that academic types are not cut out for trading.



Quote from Bernoulli:

My knee-jerk reaction was to agree until I started thinking about Bruce Kovner, William Eckhardt, Richard Dennis, Victor Niederhoffer, Helmut Weymar, Michael Marcus, etc. All of them either have PhDs or were graduate students. The best traders I've ever met were-overachieving, analytical and very smart. Those however are not sufficient conditions -- but they sure help.
More...
 
Quote from ImamicPH:

If the gold standard made sense we would have never switched.
More...

Gold standard, indeed. The most prosperous time in American history was the 19th century with little government, no central bank, and the gold standard, despite the hugely costly civil war.

Obviously you know very little about monetary history. I suggest reading, for example, Timberlake: Monetary Policy in the United States.

The US was forced off the gold standard due to decades of legitimized counterfeiting, i.e. printing money. Money-printing, i.e. stealing from citizens is what governments tend to do when they dare not impose the burden of their reckless activities via direct taxation.
 
Quote from moo:

Gold standard, indeed. The most prosperous time in American history was the 19th century with little government, no central bank, and the gold standard, despite the hugely costly civil war.

Obviously you know very little about monetary history. I suggest reading, for example, Timberlake: Monetary Policy in the United States.

The US was forced off the gold standard due to decades of legitimized counterfeiting, i.e. printing money. Money-printing, i.e. stealing from citizens is what governments tend to do when they dare not impose the burden of their reckless activities via direct taxation.
More...

Another schizo on ET. Governments printing money is not stealing from citizens Stupid. It dilutes the potency of the currency therefore increasing the price of goods and services. No one benefits unless the money that was printed in excess of gold reserves was used to pay for a needed expenditure ie. highway or welfare or something. Then everyone benefits b/c this allows for more productivity.

Saying that a gold standard caused a period of prosperity is Stupid. Have you ever heard of the ASSEMBLY LINE???? The ability to produce goods at a low cost allows for profits STUPID. It doesn't matter if I'm paying you in seashells you're still going to prosper if you're going throught a period of high productivity. See how the internet allowed for a time of increase productivity? and everyone got rich? Had nothing to do with a gold standard.

I've already listed a few problems with a gold standard. You didn't address any of those points. I'm not going to read a book on an outdated system of pegging currency to gold.
 
Quote from moo:

Gold standard, indeed. The most prosperous time in American history was the 19th century with little government, no central bank, and the gold standard, despite the hugely costly civil war.
More...

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1800-1899: 1.399% (s.d. 3.36%)

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1900-1999: 1.939% (s.d. 5.45%)

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1873-1933 (U.S. Gold Standard Period): 1.040% (s.d. 5.65%)

So it appears that the 19th century was not as prosperous as the 20th in terms of average annual GDP growth and the gold standard period was sub par.
 
Quote from Bernoulli:

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1800-1899: 1.399% (s.d. 3.36%)

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1900-1999: 1.939% (s.d. 5.45%)

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1873-1933 (U.S. Gold Standard Period): 1.040% (s.d. 5.65%)

So it appears that the 19th century was not as prosperous as the 20th in terms of average annual GDP growth and the gold standard period was sub par.
More...

Is this GDP growth, as measured in inflating fiat dollars?
 
Quote from Bernoulli:

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1800-1899: 1.399% (s.d. 3.36%)

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1900-1999: 1.939% (s.d. 5.45%)

Avg. annual per capita real GDP growth rate from 1873-1933 (U.S. Gold Standard Period): 1.040% (s.d. 5.65%)

So it appears that the 19th century was not as prosperous as the 20th in terms of average annual GDP growth and the gold standard period was sub par.
More...

I left one out, the post-Gold Standard Period (1934-2005): Avg. Growth: 2.772% (s.d. 4.66%) or nearly three times the average annual growth rate of the Gold Standard Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top