> This claim is just as problematic. You may view it as weaker, but algorithmicly speaking it's the same nonsense.
It's an existential claim, not a mathematical claim.
The claim is simply that markets are more efficient than other mechanisms, proposed or extant, which actually exist in the real world.
Clearly to quantify this claim requires some real mathematical analysis, but that's quite beyond my talents or interest. I'm just here to point out that the weakened claim is "markets are the best we've got", not anything theoretical nor abstract.
And I'd suggest reading my reply to the absurd thermodynamics bit before assuming too much about my thoughts on it!
> And I'd suggest reading my reply to the absurd thermodynamics bit before assuming too much about my thoughts on it!
I mean. My issue is multi-fold. I have an issue with market fundamentalists who treat it like a religion. But I also have an issue with economists who use methods of analysis that aren't empirical.
> It's an existential claim, not a mathematical claim.
This isn't just an issue of philosophy and mathematics in the abstract. Computation is a physical phenomena. The claim of efficiency being made here, even in the weaker version, is not congruent with reality.
It's an existential claim that would be no different than chemists shouting "this chemical reaction will continue forever" (a violation of the second law of thermodynamics).
> I'm just here to point out that the weakened claim is "markets are the best we've got", not anything theoretical nor abstract.
The weaker claim is no different than doctors who once believed in the four humors. It's not technically an incorrect categorization of reality given current knowledge in the field. But it's a piece of general economics knowledge that has no backing in reality, nor is falsifiable, nor provides predictive use.
And every time an economist spouts that sort of nonsense I can't help but remember their field must be primarily pesduo-science. I don't know how they expect me to take them seriously when they are still yelling about four humors and perpetual chemical interactions.
Because existential claims like this one are incongruent with reality. I don't know many times I can emphasize this point, the claim, even the weakest version I have seen, is not physically possible, hence it would require extraordinary evidence. It would upset the entire field of computation if it were true. It stands in opposition to modern pillars of computational reality, no different than claiming one had a perpetual motion machine would physics. Humanity would be like gods if it were true. You can continue to claim it all you want, but it's as misguided as claiming the earth is flat.
There is one prime difference between computation and economics - and for that matter, material and social sciences. Computation doesn't study humans.
Wouldn't a "unified theory" of economics (a deterministic one at that) effectively rule out free will? After all, what is "the market" if not the aggregate behaviour of all human actors in it? And if you accept free will, doesn't that conversely create a problem where the best you can do when predicting markets is correlation, not causality?
It's an existential claim, not a mathematical claim.
The claim is simply that markets are more efficient than other mechanisms, proposed or extant, which actually exist in the real world.
Clearly to quantify this claim requires some real mathematical analysis, but that's quite beyond my talents or interest. I'm just here to point out that the weakened claim is "markets are the best we've got", not anything theoretical nor abstract.
And I'd suggest reading my reply to the absurd thermodynamics bit before assuming too much about my thoughts on it!