“We Are Talking About Research, Which Is Science, Not Opinion. But We Have Different OPINIONS About What the Research Shows.”

it’s an opinion, not the law of gravity

Then why the death threats?

Why the defamation?

Why the board bannings?

Why the threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs?

The full truth here is that the idea of the Buy-and-Holders to root their investment strategies in academic research took investment advice beyond the level of just opinion. Research-based strategies are NOT pure opinion. There is science behind them.

But you are right that it is a matter of OPINION as to whether the market is efficient or not. I do not believe it is. I can point to 30 years of academic research supporting my opinion on this question. So I view my take as something more than a subjective opinion. But it is also true that there are millions of people who believe that the market is efficient. There really was academic research that seemed to show that. And many good and smart people still have confidence in that research.

So is it opinion or not?

Ultimately, we are talking about something that goes beyond mere opinion. Science has more power to persuade than does the mere expression of subjective opinion. That’s why the stakes here are so high.

But, yes, I do think it would be fair to say that it is a matter of OPINION today whether the pre-1981 research has been entirely discredited (MY opinion) or whether the pre-1981 research still holds (YOUR opinion).

We are talking about research, which is science, not opinion. But we have different OPINIONS about what the research shows. That’s the full reality.

I’ve never tried to intimidate you into pretending that you share my opinion, Dab. But on a daily basis you try to intimidate me into pretending that I share yours. You are very wrong to do that. It is the things that you have done to try to intimidate me and others that will put you in jail following the next crash, not your opinion, which by itself is of course fine.

It is the Buy-and-Holders who need to accept that, while there is indeed science present here, it is a new science that we are dealing with and not every element of the story has yet been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So we all need to be open to hearing the other guy’s opinion.

If Greaney changes his study to say that it is his OPINION that the SWR is 4 percent, I have no objection. I believe that that is indeed his opinion.

If he insists that I pretend that I share that opinion, I have a very big objection. It would be a lie for me to say that I share that opinion. I do not. I think that opinion is dangerous. I think that opinion is likely to cause great harm to millions of people.

How do you propose that we proceed, given these realities?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Comments links could be nofollow free.