“The Buy-and-Holders Do Not Say That Shiller’s Nobel-Prize-Winning Research Is in Error. That’s Not Even a Claim That Is on the Table. So It Should Be Open to Discussion.”

Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:

How many studies are part of your review of the last 43 years of peer-reviewed research? What is the list of studies that you want discussed on every discussion board? Why 43 years? What is special about 43 years? What about 50 years, or 60 years?

If you needed a critical surgery, would you want the doctor to only look at one study or should he look at all available studies to determine what technique should be followed?

We certainly should be looking at every study that is available to us. The Buy-and-Holders do not say that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is in error. That’s not even a claim that is on the table. So it should be open to discussion.

Rob