I'm not going to rehash the finer points of a debate that stubbornly refuses to die among armchair economists online. But for the benefit of everyone else reading this thread:

1. The market, and the macroeconomic system in general, is not a purely stochastic process. This is a meme.

2. If by "naive chartism" you mean technical analysis, then sure, I agree. But if you're attempting to reduce the entirety of academic and industrial economic theory and practice to "naive chartism", then your middle brow dismissal here is both incorrect and breathtakingly arrogant.

Our entire economic system is predicated on the idea that there exist inefficiencies that can be profitably capitalized on through cause and effect. No one professionally or academically familiar with this idea claims it's a guarantee, but they also don't dismiss the concept of past data being a useful but imperfect measurement for the future state of things.

Even Fama walked back from the strong EMH, and to claim that we can derive no insight about the future from the past is to utterly dismantle everything we know about the credit debt cycle and market macrostructure. If you'd like to believe that then more power to you, but implicit in that belief is a fair amount of hubris.

Since you seem like you might know, I am curious... those who believe that inefficiencies in the market are what creates profit, and that markets will naturally act to reduce inefficiencies... how do they explain skyrocketing increases of profit and decades-long persistence and growth of profit which is supposed to be quickly reduced to zero by the optimizing market? It seems like a really obvious disproof of the concept on its face, but the concept doesn't seem to be losing any traction. Are companies simply better at generating inefficiency than the market is at eliminating it?

Food for thought. Thanks.

You appear to be making an effort to come off as intelligent and I thought you might like to know that your accusations of arrogance when your post drips with it seriously undermines that.

You fail to grasp a fundamental reality: data about the past can only tell us about the past. Data about the present can be useful for making predictions. Some of it is so useful that using it is criminally prosecuted by the SEC.

By "naive" I mean any approach that relies solely on trends rather than an actual understanding of underlying causal factors. Sadly there are so many of those factors that a correct analysis is virtually impossible, but that's no excuse not to try since some factors tend to dominate others and those can sometimes be found.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gurufocus_userupload/508204100.jpg

Your third paragraph was enlightening and explained your position reasonably well. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but it seems like an interesting discussion.

I feel obliged to downvote you because of the first two paragraphs, why did you add them? You were trying to refute what you considered an "accusation of arrogance" with the most arrogant opening paragraph possible?

I don't think this response should be getting downvoted; I'll upvote it for the third paragraph, which I largely agree with.

We can agree to disagree on the exact definition of "virtually impossible", but in the broad strokes I think we're both saying some factor analysis can be sometimes productive. In particular, I definitely agree that 1) an "actual understanding of underlying causal factors" is imperative, and 2) an approach based on trends (and trend following) is naive.

Less is more. Your third paragraph makes a strong argument and cuts right to the heart of the disagreement. The rest is a distraction.

Other commenters already pointed out the main thing, but I need to let you know that we ban accounts that include personal attacks in their comments, so could you please make sure not to do that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html