All of Clownfish's Comments + Replies

The Solow-Swan model of economic growth

i'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, i too would like technology to be defined properly. i think the common understanding of technology would be confined to things like gadgets, software, automation. economists seem to use more of a civ version of the word, which includes things like writing, buddhism, plastic. if technology is not framed as "everything else", i'd be curious to know what kinds of things are used in the production function but don't fall in one of the three buckets. however, i'm more curious to know which bucket ai ends up in. i think most people would call it a technology, but i could be persuaded to stick it in capital (tool) or labor (brain).  

The Solow-Swan model of economic growth

this is an interesting topic, thanks for the great post. i find it frustrating that economists use some non-standard definitions for common words (i'm not looking for precise definitions but consistent definitons would be helpful). in the context of the solow-swan model, i think the definitions/buckets would be something like:

input: raw materials, energy, time
capital: tools, infrastructure, liquid assets
labor: people, effort, skills
technology: everything else (including things like research, entrepreneurship, political institutions)
output: consumption goods, services

is this right? i think "technology" is the term that's farthest from its common usage.

1Semih__3moTechnology must be defined properly and should not be framed as "everything else." There are many theories on that but you could check Heidegger and Technology as a starters.
[LINK] Luck, Skill, and Improving at Games

I'll add that for competitive games, you want to encourage your opponent to use more luck and less skill, for example by praising his superior dice rolling abilities, and reframe your skillful moves as totally lucky, no way that could happen again!

In poker, you'll sometimes see a player get upset and criticize his opponent if he loses a hand because the opponent made a lucky draw or call (how could you call that, only one card could help you!) Rational players understand that having the opponent call with a bad hand is the only way they make money, so they'll praise the lucky draw (great call, I just can't seem to beat you!)

Why do stocks go up?

If I can summarize your question as something like "can I beat the returns on an index fund by only investing in companies with new/useful technologies", I think you'll find this question is similar to "which version of the EMH is true", and you'll also find a lot of good discussions about this, for example here:

For the two stories presented, I would say Story 1 is trivially true and Story 2 is probably false, although it's not phrased super well (for example, is "advances in tec... (read more)

The EMH Aten't Dead

Thanks, I loved this post. Its obviously hard to distinguish luck from skill when it comes to investment returns, I don't think focusing on money and track record would be enough to convince me of skill. I think I would need to also rationally evaluate the investment strategy to determine if it can be reasonably expected to beat the market. Common strategies like "we do what everyone else does but better", or "we invest in value/growth" would probably not convince me (risk premiums, liquidity premiums, animal spirits probably affec... (read more)

What are the best self-help book summaries you've read?

Have a look at, it sounds like what you're looking for, there's a website and a phone app. "Founded in 2012 by four friends, Blinkist now connects 6-million readers worldwide to the biggest ideas from bestselling nonfiction via 15-minute audio and text."

Also, this Atlantic article had a good comparison of Blinkist vs Wikipedia vs Reading The Book:

2ChristianKl2yI find it unlikely that Blinkist provides Slate-Star-Codex-level review's. That a very different intellectual level then a mainstream outlet hiring a few people to write summaries.