>First of all, not a lot of people actually use academic economic theories
Maybe not, it you don't consider Black-Scholes and it's endless brood of offspring to be serious academic theories.
Not many people use nation-state Keynesian or other big macro policy theories to play the markets - which is a different point.
But it's a relevant different point, because it highlights the political reality of using macro as a hand-wavey excuse for policy which benefits market operators and the owners of the money behind them at the expense of the rest of the population.
>It is called "the random walk hypothesis" and is the foundation of a lot of assumptions.
Quite. Does it not worry you that this is true, or that even with this insight manic-depressive boom-bust behaviour is apparently still considered a feature, not a bug?
>So I urge you to actually build an informed opinion
I suspect my opinion is at least adequately informed. Perhaps you're mistaking being heterodox for being wrong?
So are the markets.
>First of all, not a lot of people actually use academic economic theories
Maybe not, it you don't consider Black-Scholes and it's endless brood of offspring to be serious academic theories.
Not many people use nation-state Keynesian or other big macro policy theories to play the markets - which is a different point.
But it's a relevant different point, because it highlights the political reality of using macro as a hand-wavey excuse for policy which benefits market operators and the owners of the money behind them at the expense of the rest of the population.
>It is called "the random walk hypothesis" and is the foundation of a lot of assumptions.
Quite. Does it not worry you that this is true, or that even with this insight manic-depressive boom-bust behaviour is apparently still considered a feature, not a bug?
>So I urge you to actually build an informed opinion
I suspect my opinion is at least adequately informed. Perhaps you're mistaking being heterodox for being wrong?