Scholarly Comments on Academic Economics

Cry Wine and Sell Vinegar: Rejoinder to Miao and Wang

by and

Read this article

Access statistics
553 article downloads
2,043 complete issue downloads
Total: 2,596

Abstract

Jianjun Miao and Pengfei Wang replied to our article “Toward Bubble Clarity” published in Econ Journal Watch in March 2025. Miao and Wang acknowledge that our proof of the nonexistence of rational bubbles in the Miao and Wang (2018) model is mathematically correct. In other words, they admitted that the stock price in their model is equal to the fundamental value defined by the present discounted value of dividends. Some controversies remain. In this rejoinder, we clarify several points: (i) Miao and Wang (2018) did not clearly distinguish “transversality condition for optimality” and “transversality condition for asset pricing,” which is crucial for this debate. (ii) Miao and Wang (2018) did not prove “transversality condition for optimality” (which in this particular model turns out to be equivalent to “transversality condition for asset pricing”) and hence did not prove the nonexistence of rational bubbles in their model. (iii) Investigating all “bubble” papers by Miao and Wang, we show that they have been advertising their work as “rational bubble,” which is akin to crying wine and selling vinegar.

This article is a response to Responses to “Toward Bubble Clarity: A Comment on Miao and Wang” by Jianjun Miao and Pengfei Wang (EJW, September 2025).

in

Download this article

Volume (Issue)
Pages
211–231
Published
JEL classification
D25, E22, E32, E44, G12, G14
Keywords
rational bubble, speculation, transversality condition
Downloads
553 article downloads
2,043 complete issue downloads
Total: 2,596

Discuss this article!