Inadequate Equilibria

Jevons Paradox applies here too, but economics has normally not been flexible enough to take on this obvious truth, and it is very common to see writing in economics refer to efficiency as good by definition, and inefficient as simply a synonym for bad or poorly done. But the evidence shows that there is good efficiency and bad efficiency, good ine

But if you think in terms of equilibrium, as I said, there’s a subtle bias with all of us economists. If things are in equilibrium, there’s no way to improve on that, otherwise it wouldn’t be an equilibrium, so we don’t think in terms of people gaming such systems.

I suspect that, in general, if two rationalists set out to resolve a disagreement that persisted past the first exchange, they should expect to find that the true sources of the disagreement are either hard to communicate, or hard to expose. E.g.: Uncommon, but well-supported, scientific knowledge or math; Long inferential distances; Hard-to-verbal

Even if their forecasts were true (they aren’t), no individual can get the same returns as the market unless he has infinite pockets and no uncle points. This is conflating ensemble probability and time probability. If the investor has to eventually reduce his exposure because of losses, or because of retirement, or because he got divorced to marry