HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010985.jpg

The rule does not say that risk-adjusted return tends to hold constant over time. To the contrary. Return equals growth plus cash flow, and my charts show the growth component as a bucking bronco. The maximand rule says only that risk-adjusted return is always the maximand. It is not always the same as time changes circumstances. Proof is in Turgot’s equalization of return at each moment, not from one moment to the next. That is what we see wherever we look. There is a quibble worth attention. Behavior seldom expresses taste exactly. We say one word when we mean another. We reach for the coffee, and accidentally spill it. That was the point of my axiom that predictions converge to outcomes, as well as to one another, only on average. Outcomes are generally a little better or a little worse than predicted. There can even be systematic bias where all people together seem overoptimistic or overpessimistic accordingly to circumstances, as shown in the psychological economics of Hanneman and Tversky. The axiom requires that these biases offset over scale and time. That sounds plausible, and anyhow makes analysis easier. The maximand rule would be ridiculous if terms were defined in a literal market context only. Markets must be defined as wherever any choice is made. It would be ridiculous if cash flow were understood to presuppose literal cash, or even the necessity of some quid pro quo to explain motivations. Unreciprocated gift down the generations drives lineage survival. All behavior means all behavior. The miser maximizes the growth component in return, the parent or philanthropist maximizes the net gift component, and the good-time Charlie maximizes exhaust. Have I gone too far in this claim? Try to imagine an exception. What kind of behavior might not maximize perceived risk-adjusted return? What if 1 jump out the window? Deliberately drive my car into a tree? Sell a cow for a handful of beans? Maximize a Chapter 3: Foundations 1/11/16 14 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010985