jmh530

Schweser also had this section beyond wrong so it will be interesting for the Schweser only people.

The main point is they can be complements or substitutes. However their example seemed to substitutes and they called it complements.

In the example it appeared as if low implicit incentives meant low chance of keeping job, whereas the reading made it seem those were high implicit incentives.

Schweser has that at high implicit incentives.

Who knows?

The curriculum as a whole seems ugly when broken down. Lots of ambiguity and minutia that contradicts other minutia.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at Monday, May 30, 2011 at 10:40AM by Paraguay.

jmh530

I think that they're saying that it's a spectrum. With very weak implicit incentives, the two are complements. With very strong implicit incentives, the two are substitutes. So as you move along he spectrum from weak implicit incentives to strong implicit incentives, you move from complements to substitutes. So in their examples, the strength of the IMPLICIT incentives determined the degree of substitutability. You can probably argue the same about the strength of EXPLICIT incentives.