This makes sense. That being said, convention is very useful until it is broken for further optimization and setting better standards. I'm just not sure that a debate over "when it really started" is useful in that specific applications can define the start and end based upon what is needed rather than what is right, wrong, or accepted by convention. One exception to this is that non-specialists or students may learn something from the debate (provided it is public). A more useful debate would be whether or not we should rid ourselves of daylight savings time!
Lol. Now you're getting to the core of macroeconomics within our existing infrastructure. The Fed is cutting (again!) investors are chilling (again!). I don't want to burn money with some sort of hopeful expectation of profit in the future, but goodness gracious money is so friggen cheap right now.
I totally agree with this. In terms of academic achievement, it's more of "where you were" at the time and overall competency, but reality is much more brutal. The luck factor is well-known in financial circles and business circles alike (those two are tied to the hip). This is why the adages "Control what you can" and "Control your destiny" are still hold true today. As arrogant as they sound, at least they emphasize pushing towards making choice in the face of adversity. Accepting luck is an important piece of humility.