This concluding part of the philosophy of money (to appear as a column in the May issue of the Wilmott Magazine) shares my private disappointment that whatever I wrote up may not have been as original as I expected it to be. But the concept of money has been around for a long time now, so I should not dwell on it too much.
Having looked at the how of money in the last post, here is the why of money in this third post in the my mini-series. Why do we want it so bad?
This second post of the mini series based on my upcoming column in the Wilmott Magazine looks at how people make money in a scalable fashion. It was posted earlier in this blog.
Here is another mini series of posts based on an upcoming column of mine in the Wilmott Magazine to appear in their May issue. I have posted similar ideas here before, but this series will put them together, hopefully as a cohesive whole. This first post of the series looks at the unphysical nature of money.
Here’s wishing you a Happy 2010… May your resolutions hold up longer than those of the years past. And may you find peace, happiness, good health and prosperity.
On what is important in life. And what is not.
Mathematical finance is built on a couple of assumptions. The most fundamental of them is the one on market efficiency. Is it wise to trust this assumption? Are there limits to it? Are we operating at the right scale to ignore the shakiness of the market efficiency assumption?
People tend to follow the money gradient. When a particular field is lucrative, more people tend to end up there. During the IT boom time of the previous decade, most of the talent flowed in there. Finance also has been a not-so-strange attractor for academics. Here is a look at the culture shock associated. Another excerpt from my upcoming column in the Wilmott Magazine.
This short piece is part of a column coming up in the Wilmott Magazine. Although summarily treated as a sort of curiosity, this idea may indeed blossom into a full-length book. For that reason, you will find more posts on related topics soon. For instance, why is it that hard work does not always equate to enhanced bank balance? Why do celebrities and entrepreneurs make so much more than normal employees? Want to know? Stay tuned…
The last post in this series, this one exposes the extreme cases both in allowing and in denying bonuses, and their implications. Both the options imply our acceptance of certain economic idea. And, as with most things in life, it is not quite clear which is right, once you think long enough about it. A happy and stable middle ground is what we should seek and find.
If you generate profit, don’t you deserve a share of it? Profit generation and increasing shareholder value — these are the hallmarks of top talent in our capitalistic world view now. What is good for the shareholder is certainly good for the talent as well.
Another common argument is that bonuses are necessary to retail the so-called “talent.” Are they?