Díky!

For clarity, it is a terrible shame that a prime minister of an EU country (in which I happen to be born) goes to Kremlin and begs the mass murderer for oil.

I understand the argument for the lunch rooms but I’m a little afraid to ask for a clarification on the bathroom argument.

The paper is here: home.cerge-ei.cz/steiner/Grow...

Almost all wealth is then generated alongside an optimal large deviation that enjoys a high enough excess growth rate but isn't too rare. We then get an extension of Kelly's insight: optimal policy redistributes incidental luck but minimizes systematic redistribution as much as constraints allow.

We envision redistribution policy as a stochastic rule that moves dollars around people. As it turns out, Large deviations theory has a bite. Some dollars happen to be lucky in the Forest Gump's sense: they often end up in the hands of people at those periods when these are productive.

For our application though, Kelly's optimal allocation may not be feasible due to inequality constraints, and thus we solve a constrained version of Kelly's betting problem. For this, we develop a new solution method.

Maintaining the optimal hedge requires redistribution (portfolio rebalancing) from those who got lucky to those who didn’t. According to Kelly’s (1956) optimality condition, however, this redistribution isn’t systematic: once luck is averaged out, it should cancel out.

We view individuals as financial assets with random returns. Choosing and maintaining wealth distribution at the macro level is thus akin to managing a private asset portfolio. In both cases, hedging is essential to sustain an optimal growth rate, which involves allocating wealth to the underdogs.

Pokud jsou tedy ekonomove vedci :-)

Since none of us reads these, can we just agree on not having introductions?

I'd be happy to be added. Thanks for doing this.