Good reads from around the Web.
The tensions between inequality, meritocracy, communism and the incentives of capitalism have been endlessly debated over the years.
But for too long capuchin monkeys were denied their say.
This injustice was corrected by research showing that the little fellas react just as angrily to inequality as any Occupy protestor running low on Skinny Chai Lattes from the oppressors at Starbucks.
The following video shares the story:
(The full version of this TED lecture is available on its website).
I am not sure whether this video really does show the monkey is reacting angrily to not getting equal pay – or whether he’d just like some grapes, too, as they’re clearly on offer.
A better approach might be to deliver the same type of “pay”, but to give greater amounts to the monkey who demonstrates superior performance. Would our furry friends be happy to see higher skill rewarded?
I have no idea, but I do feel sorry for the losing monkey. It all seems a bit cruel.
Why not just put cameras in City offices at bonus time for equally mean but more amusing results?
From the blogs
Making good use of the things that we find…
Passive investing
- Blended real returns from 16 countries – Mebane Faber Research
- The price-bubblegum ratio and future returns – Rick Ferri
Active investing
- Return and ridicule – Fred Wilson
- Are BG shares a good investment? – UK Value Investor
- The fine art of being wrong – The Big Picture
- Bunzl: A growth company worth paying for – iii blog
- I survived the flash crash of 2013 – The Reformed Broker
- The activist investor – Wexboy
Other articles
- Understanding what your PAYE tax code means – TaxFix
- An unfriendly savings bond – Dosh & Nosh
- Why should I be frugal, when I’m so rich? – Mr Money Mustache
- Please don’t call me cheap – Len Penzo
- A peek into the workings of capitalism – Simple Living in Suffolk
Product of the week: I long for a big, cheap mortgage. Reader Brendan pointed me to a new 3.99% ten-year deal from Yorkshire, which is profiled in The Guardian. Low fees!
Mainstream media money
Note: Some links are to Google search results – these enable you to click through to read the piece without you being a paid subscriber of the site.
Passive investing
- Terry Smith: A reminder to keep a lid on costs [Search result] – FT
- Swedroe: Big stock market drops are frequent occurrences – CBS
- Low volatility ETFs outshining counterparts – Index Universe
- iShares launches cheap active ETFs in the US – Index Universe
Active investing
- Why emerging markets have lagged – The Economist
- Wall Street analysts tell all – Wall Street Journal
- Seth Klarman: Lost lessons from the crisis – Guru Focus
- What Apple can learn from Warren Buffett… – Bloomberg
- …even if its buybacks are a big deal – Fool and Reuters [plus charts]
Other stuff worth reading
- Nicholas “Black Swan” Taleb has a hissy fit on Twitter – B.I.
- FCA bans fund rebates – Telegraph & iii & FT Adviser
- Merryn: Latest ruse of the City fat cats – Moneyweek
Book of the week: I am really enjoying Money Mavericks
Like these links? Subscribe to get them every week!
Comments on this entry are closed.
It does rather lead to the obvious question of what would have happened had they used two 800lb gorillas instead of two Capuchin monkeys?
TBTF?
Raising a second question as to why didn’t they learn the lesson first time around…?
I saw the 10 year fix – it struck me that 3.99% isn’t really cheap these days, even with the lower fees.
Hmm not quite relevant but are there any stock screeners (US stocks) you’d recommend where you pay peanuts but you don’t get monkeys ?
I’ve found your UK-centric recommendations very good, I use daily telegraph and digilook, both free after recommendations in your blog.
There are a bunch of 5 year fixed rate deals between 2.5-2.75%, which means there is virtually no safety premium to pay over tracker. This is very unusual so a great time to go for a 5 year fix in the next few months. I can’t see that situation lasting into 2014.
We do seem have to a hard-wired sense of fair play, but I also think that we augment this with sufficient intelligence to realise that some people are capable of performing tasks that others would find close to impossible.
If these functions are of great value to an employer, then pay will reflect this, not least because otherwise the valuable skills will walk out of the door.
Retaining key people is difficult, and if a few hairy monkeys scream that paying such people more is somehow wrong, then so be it.