In praise of trolls
People who think they are good trolls, usually are not.
I have many people who leave troll-like comments in my blog. Years ago I stopped reading Major Freeman, as he was so tiresome. Flow5? Perhaps the only commenter who fails the Turing test. Gary is one of those sad cases that doesn’t even know that he is a troll. I keep poking fun at Ray Lopez’s comments, because Ray is perhaps the best villain in the blogosphere—possessing an almost Trump-like perfect storm of bad characteristics.
Now Bob Murphy is bragging about how good a troll he is, and he cites a comment that he left at my blog. Let’s see why Bob has an inflated opinion of his trolling:
Scott,
I’ve got another great example of a patently absurd statement that violates the EMH:
“The easiest short sales I’ve ever had in my life were the stocks and bonds of Donald J. Trump’s companies. … It was like numerous ocean liners hitting many icebergs repeatedly.” — Jim Chanos, Kynikos Associates
And some economists hate Trump so much that they are repeating the above absurdity to their readers without commenting on how ridiculous it is. Can you imagine?!
I guess Bob’s point was that there is some sort of contradiction. My post defended the EMH, and he cited an earlier post where I quoted Jim Chanos in a way that seemed to violate the EMH. Chanos seemed to think that he could predict asset price movements.
And yet of course there is no contradiction. When a blogger quotes someone, they don’t necessarily agree with everything in the quote. This was merely a throwaway joke at the end of a long post, pointing out that many of Trump’s companies had done poorly for their investors. That’s simply a factual claim, which in no way depends on whether the EMH is true or not. I don’t care if Chanos is smart or lucky (I’m pretty sure he’s lucky—as he’s been predicting doom in China for years, and . . . well . . . how’s that forecast working out?) I’m like an intellectual magpie; I select what I want from others, and ignore the rest. I wanted dirt on Trump’s record—how well he had done for those who trusted him—and Chanos provided it. On the other hand, Trump is very loyal to the people around him, or at least so claims his third wife.
Trolls love to look for contradictions. “He said something good about country X, but in the past he said something bad about country X”. Or “He said the Wicksellian equilibrium rate is useless, now he’s using that concept in a post.” Or “He said income is a useless concept, but he favors targeting NGDP.” Each time I have to patiently explain why there is no contradiction.
I do feel honored to have so many trolls, which is why I don’t cut them off. They claim no one cares about my blog, but the hundreds of hours they spend on comments suggests otherwise. In total, Major Freeman’s comments far exceed the length of all my posts—and think how long winded I am! If published as a book, his comments would exceed the length of the IRS tax code.
PS. Who knew?
Magpies are birds of the Corvidae (crow) family, including the black and white Eurasian magpie, which is considered one of the most intelligent animals in the world, and the only non-mammal species able to recognize itself in a mirror test[1](though a recent study suggests that giant manta rays can also recognize their own reflection[2])
With the exception of Bob, my trolls are generally not able to recognize themselves in the mirror. And Bob’s not really a troll–he needs to be much more prolific to earn that honorary title.
Tags:
3. October 2016 at 09:16
We are all trolls on this blessed day.
3. October 2016 at 09:26
What happened to Ol’ M. Wharstler? I know just about everyone muted him on Twitter, but not here.
By the way, I’m not saying his full name because he probably has a Google Alert on it, and will show up if you say it.
3. October 2016 at 09:31
Wait, “Major Freeman?” I thought it was “Freedom?” A purposeful misspelling?
3. October 2016 at 09:50
Fun drinking game: how many of the named trolls will have enough self control to avoid leaving a comment on this very post? Or, like Pavlov’s dogs or moths to a flame, are they unable to resist the siren call of being named in the original post? Take a shot every time a troll is forced by his mental illness to comment here!
3. October 2016 at 09:55
I have but 4 quick points:
(1) I was NOT saying I was the best troll; I just wanted my name in the hat. For sure the collective trolling at Marginal Revolution is off the charts, though I don’t know if any individual troll there deserves the title.
(2) I think the other trolls would admit that if I provoke you to do a whole post on it, then that was some high quality trolling.
(3) It is totally absurd when some people say you are a nobody, Scott. Ever since Tyler declared Scott Sumner Day, I have held you personally responsible for the fate of the world economy.
(4) Don Geddis, only the laziest of trolls cites “mental illness” to disparage people whose behavior he can’t understand. You’re better than this.
3. October 2016 at 10:19
Tom, Unintentional. Over at Econlog I just did a post mentioning that I can’t recall anyone’s names anymore. I just turned 61.
Bob, Sorry, but your comments are just too good to be considered troll-like. But if it will make you feel better I’ll vote for you. God knows I don’t want to give Major Freedom the honor.
3. October 2016 at 10:24
I actually care about your blog, Scott. I just don’t like asset purchasing gone wild, that drives first time buyers out of homes, that kills people’s ability to commute to jobs, that drives up energy and materials while wages stagnate.
Used to be housing went up with the rate of inflation. But that is no longer the case. Housing is increasing in value far faster than inflation. The Fed would have had more control with Helicopter Money then by giving free money to the Blackstones of the world.
Manipulated markets save banks, to be sure, but they also cause massive economic distortions. Those will come to roost once Blackstone has to liquidate.
Home ownership is dropping like a rock, Scott. That would not be so bad if rents were not exploding. But they are.
3. October 2016 at 10:28
And I am sincere Scott. Trolls are not sincere. I don’t post to make you angry, like many do. When I post that bonds are in massive demand and nothing will force long yields up much, I am posting to warn you that most monetarism in this age of structured finance gone wild will just frustrate you and most monetarists in general.
I am not trying to make you angry, but that is what trolls seek to do.
But thanks for remembering me, anyway.
3. October 2016 at 10:32
Don’t mean to hog this thread, but here is an example of home ownership being destroyed for the young. The chart is alarming for the astonishing slope of decline. They have been priced out by the Fed, Blackstone, Doitchy Bank, etc.
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/01/30/the-american-dream-dissipates-at-record-pace/
3. October 2016 at 10:43
Sumner: “Ray Lopez’s comments, because Ray is perhaps the best villain in the blogosphere” – thanks Scott, I love you too man. I’ve been making provocative posts since the early 1990s, before they even had a HTTP internet. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been banned. Glad I finally found a home here {sniff, sniff}, thanks professor…
When are you going to do a substantive post on Mishkin’s anti-NGDP comments of the previous post? Your one liners were not that informative. If you do a post on Mishkin’s textbook comments I will seriously consider reconsidering money neutrality.
I am reading btw a book on ancient money (they often used commodities like a bushel of wheat as money) and am willing to concede that perhaps there is a liquidity preference or otherwise that causes short-term AS/AD curves for money to slope up/down. It’s very small but perhaps it exists. During the 19th century US merchants complained there was a lack of ‘small bills’ (e.g., coins, hence the introduction of the US penny in the 1950s) so perhaps this is further evidence of a sloping IS/LM curve (i.e., money is not neutral). So please do a post on the Mishkin comments (do you think I’m trolling you right now? I trust you can see the truth…)
3. October 2016 at 11:00
Speaking of epic trolls, this guy “Ken M.” is the best I’ve ever heard about. Just check out at least 5 of these examples to get the gist, and you’ll either be hooked or think it’s stupid.
3. October 2016 at 11:10
The tax code is pretty compact. It’s the Treasury Regulations that get you.
3. October 2016 at 11:51
IMHO, Bob is a relatively talented troll, notwithstanding the lack of production.
The primary goal of a troll is to get attention – Bob now has a whole post about himself, through a combination of some teasing and referring to himself as a troll. Trolls who get completely ignored by everyone (as in “don’t feed the trolls”) are failures. Bob’s posts are often interesting, often funny, and sometimes effective in provoking a response.
I guess the counter is that a troll is classically someone who doesn’t contribute to discussion but is just posting to get a reaction, but still.
On the underlying point, I’d be interested in knowing if you could put together some kind of investment screen based on the theory that particular individuals have a reputation that the market doesn’t accurately price. My prior is that the EMH would usually win – that if you think Steve Jobs or Donald Trump are overvalued, or somebody else is undervalued, you would find that on average, the market prices them close enough to true that it’s hard to consistently make money over time.
3. October 2016 at 11:53
Bob – have you seen Ken M’s comment on the space shuttle? It might be my favorite troll of all time.
http://imgur.com/r/KenM/V0QbSVm
3. October 2016 at 12:38
I may be a Trumpista. I am glad I didn’t make the troll list. All the comments I’ve posted have been 100% serious and genuine. I would vote for Peter Thiel if I could.
3. October 2016 at 13:01
@Massimo:
I believe every state allows you to write in a presidential candidate to vote for, so you can vote for Thiel
3. October 2016 at 13:43
So Scott, you are responsible for the fate of the world economy? Looks like it’s doing pretty well. Thanks very much for your work on this.
3. October 2016 at 14:13
The fact that Scott has a well curated selection of trolls just goes to show how influential his views are. Nobody would care to troll a nobody.
3. October 2016 at 14:39
Jill wrote:
“So Scott, you are responsible for the fate of the world economy? Looks like it’s doing pretty well. Thanks very much for your work on this.:
Jill, I invite you to watch this short clip.
3. October 2016 at 14:45
Everyone, Is there any way we could get Ken to start commenting here?
Jill, Don’t mention it. As Trump might say, “People say that I saved the economy back in 2011, but I don’t like to take full credit.”
3. October 2016 at 15:57
If me pointing out the economic fallacies, hypocrisy, and contradictions in MoneyIllusion posts deserves being labelled a troll, then I will happily and proudly wear that label.
And don’t blame me for your behavior towards my posts. It is immature to justify your own actions by what I say. Your behavior is your own choice, and I should say that it appears to be a poor choice. Why? Because by continuing to not address or engage my comments, you are almost incentivized to continue to do so to save face, and that leaves my comments utterly unchallenged. Even those comments you are itching to address and “demolish”, go unimpeded.
Tiresome? Long winded? Certainly! My goal is to find truth, not agreement. Your goal is to find agreement, not truth. Your philosophy has been chosen to justify your pre-existing beliefs. The irony is that you have not yet realized that you cannot separate agreement from truth in the way you believe, because you are appealing to a truth with capital T when you claim there is or is not an agreement about the topic in question. By pretending that truth cannot be known, that truth is what most people believe, or what most people can get away with, you are by virtue of those propositions appealing to the truth of them, and thus to some truth as such. To therefore attempt to put agreement above truth, is to contradict yourself. Agreement is itself predicated on the convictions of some truths in reality. Or else you would be stuck in an infinite regress of agreement of that which is agreed or not agreed upon, which itself has to be agreed upon, and so on. In other words, you are not even referring to or showing any agreement on anything if consensus were the supposed ground. You would need consensus on whether there is consensus, and consensus on that consensus…
For the record, I am not a troll according to the standard definition of troll. I do not post what I post to get an emotional rise out of anyone, nor to flamebait them. I post what I post because I want to both find truths, and spread them. I do so anonymously. I don’t get any reward or recompense for any of this. I focus on this blog, among others, because this one is particularly rife with a blend of ignorance and hubris. I see through the occasional fake modesty comments, they are panderings and attempts to curry favor with influential people. This blog is a malinvestment. It is only in existence because of anti-market, socialist banking. Without central banks, NGDPLT is a figment of a tinpot dictator’s imagination. The market is not responsible for this blog. The state is responsible. In a laissez faire world, I would still be doing what I am doing, for I am doing actual economics. The science of acting man in a world of scarcity.
Keynesianism and Monetarism are political strategies of socialism, nothing more, nothing less. Positivism as applied to human action is an aberration in the history of science, and a threat to Western civilization (private property, individual liberty).
3. October 2016 at 15:57
@Scott,
“Who knew?” Quite a few people. And Pica pica is not the only member of the Corvidae family that can recognize itself. I had a Japanese Jungle Crow (Corvus macrorhynchos) that you used to visit the balcony railing at my office every morning to preen in front of the reflective window frame.
3. October 2016 at 16:03
Fans uses the EMH in several non-compatible ways, I rather sure none of them are sanction your own personal account of what “EMH” implies.
On EconTalk Fama flatly said that EMH was nothing more than a report of what he learned from his own and his grad students efforts to come up with mathematical algorithms applied like a dumb machine to number series generated in financial reports of the kind find in the newspaper and quarterly corporate financial reports. He frankly admitted that Wall Street was full of firms that had found ways to make money hedging on mistakes that people with common sense judgment could see, of the kind recounted in many books on the rise of computerized hedging. People like Edward Thorp are real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O._Thorp and Fama knows it.
3. October 2016 at 16:40
Fama uses the EMH in several non-compatible ways, I’m rather sure none of them sanction your own idiosyncratic account of what “EMH” implies.
On EconTalk Fama flatly said that EMH was nothing more than an empirical report of what he learned from his own and his grad students efforts to come up with mathematical algorithms applied like a dumb machine to number series generated in financial reports of the kind find in the newspaper and quarterly corporate financial reports. He frankly admitted that Wall Street was full of firms that had found ways to make money hedging on systematic market imperfections that people with common sense judgment could see — of the kind recounted in many books on the rise of computerized hedging. People like Edward Thorp are real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O._Thorp and Fama knows it.
3. October 2016 at 16:47
Scott and Murphy are trolling us all by missing the word “troll”. Ken M is a real troll, no one here actually a troll, they may be dumb, or bores, or nuts or have too much time on their hands, but not really genuine trolls.
3. October 2016 at 16:50
And of course you definitely were OK with your readers making such conclusions anyway, because the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Quote someone favorably, fail to address the economic fallacy in it (I mean, it is not as if you are mainly concerned with economics), and then when someone calls you on it, you feign ignorance and scoff at the suggestion tacit in your favorable quoting!
If it was someone else, who is not anti-Trump, but was say anti-Sumner and talming about going contrarian to your investments, then is it really so hard to believe that you would not have quoted it favorably, and address the faux pas against EMH?
When Murphy talks about “contradictions”, if you have not realized it by now, he does not mean only literal, in your face contradictions. He is also talking about DOUBLE STANDARDS, as well as using arguments in favor of one’s own position that one would have used as an attack on one’s opponents, and vice versa.
It is often what happens when you put politics over truth.
3. October 2016 at 17:02
Bob Murphy, nice clip. I’m not ruing it yet, but who knows. Time will tell. The world economy has its ups and downs. But right now it looks like Scott did a good job. So that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
3. October 2016 at 17:21
Nobody believes there are massive demand for bonds, screwing up monetarism. Only the editors at Talkmarkets believe me enough to publish what I write about it.
All I am asking from Scott is to consider this demand and its affect on us all.
Jill, lol, you are funny. I will stick with you.
3. October 2016 at 17:33
I take umbrage at your remarks, Greg Ransom. Here is a standard definition:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
That is totally me. I’m not mean (I hope), but I’m definitely trolling in most of what I post here.
If you knew me on Facebook, there would be no doubt.
3. October 2016 at 18:12
Yes, I’ve decided our blog is the 21st century version of old men in rocking chairs on the front porch arguing about world events. Where else would I learn that “Positivism as applied to human action is an aberration in the history of science, and a threat to Western civilization”. Wow…that is deep…
3. October 2016 at 18:21
Well, engineer, positivism does not account for everything in life. And, Western Civilization is irrelevant, because God does not call very many people. Those people have little impact on Western Civilization because they are very limited as to numbers.
So, since God calls few people, many would consider Christ, and his Apostle Paul to be king and prince of trolls. It seems that way, to the positivist.
He likely won’t find out he is wrong about them being trolls, until after the end of time.
And that sucks for the positivists. Sartre is likely pleading with God to spring him from the inferno and at least give him a rock to push.
3. October 2016 at 18:49
@msgkings, You are completely right. I can vote for Peter Thiel or Mickey Mouse, which is basically throwing your vote away… I’ll vote for Trump but in a fantasy world it would be nice to have someone like Thiel making policy decisions.
3. October 2016 at 19:05
@Massimo: unless you are in a swing state, any vote you make is throwing it away because it has zero chance of changing the outcome. And even in a swing state it’s infinitesimally effective. It would be better if people would stop thinking of voting for anyone outside of the duopoly as vote ‘wasting’, because then a signal could be sent.
This year I expect the other parties to have far more votes than usual, because the Dem and Rep are both terrible and widely disliked. If Johnson can get 10% of the vote and Stein 4% and thousands like you vote for Thiel, maybe the duopoly will learn not to offer such a terrible choice again.
3. October 2016 at 22:43
Magpies are also a giant pain in the arse during breeding season, as they swoop somewhat arbitrarily. Not sure if that’s what you also had in mind.
4. October 2016 at 00:07
Greg Ransom is a troll, takes one to know one.
OT-I bet Sumner does not do a column on Miskin’s criticism of him, see the previous post for Sumner’s one-liners. MF is right: Sumner only responds to ‘softballs’ and stuff that’s easy to answer; the stuff that’s hard and true he ignores.
OT2- according to IS-LM theory, caeteris paribus, an INCREASE in money supply causes the LM curve to shift right, and auto-magically causes a corresponding, equivalent DECREASE in money demand. But the real world is not like that: in Japan they have been increasing money supply for 20+ years with no decrease in demand. Sumner says “just print more money” which logically would eventually mean the government would own 99% of all assets (already the JP gov’t owns 50% of all JP stock index funds). Rogoff and others say “abolish cash and allow negative interest rates” which logically would mean people would either lose all their money (in the long run) or have to buy assets, like gold, real estate, etc and would create an asset bubble. What is Sumner’s proposal? Silence. Sumner’s NGDPLT is, like Mishkin says, a fancy form of inflation targeting, nothing more. Sumner thinks he’s chimichanga hot but he couldn’t be milder: Deadpool vs Boba Fett. Epic Rap Battles of History- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g708PmJAbuI at 1:39.
4. October 2016 at 02:47
Bob,
thanks a thousand times for showing us Ken M’s true genius. Who knew there’s internet Zen. I sometimes troll, guilty pleasure, but I can never be that good.
4. October 2016 at 04:44
How could you forget Shmebulock, Crusher of Pussy?
4. October 2016 at 05:40
You let a psychotic dislike of a political candidate push you into endorsing a ridiculous statement. Then, when this was pointed out, you backpedaled. Your criticisms of Krugman’s dodginess and dishonesty when he’s caught at being wrong are starting to look like hypocrisy.
4. October 2016 at 05:41
“Well, engineer, positivism does not account for everything in life”
No, it certainly does not. But is explains a lot. By applying Positivism to the current political situation, for example, I can use empirical evidence and reason to know what Trump will do and say in reaction to any event to near scientific certainty. Trump will do and say what is good for Trump and will denigrate the character of anyone who does or says anything that is contrary regardless of who they are. In the Trump universe, all life and human actions revolve around Trump and any friend of a Trump enemy is an enemy.
4. October 2016 at 06:02
Greg, No that’s not what Fama believes.
Ray, You said:
“I bet Sumner does not do a column on Miskin’s criticism of him”
You lose, I’ve already done more than a dozen such columns.
NoTroll, Lighten up! Can’t you tell when I’m just joking around?
4. October 2016 at 06:31
@ssumner – fine, but do a post on this: “OT2- according to IS-LM theory, caeteris paribus, an INCREASE in money supply causes the LM curve to shift right, and auto-magically causes a corresponding, equivalent DECREASE in money demand.”. How can an adult like you believe in auto-magic?
4. October 2016 at 09:34
[…] Scott has playfully pushed back against my nomination of myself as Best Troll of an Economics Blog 2016; you can read that and the comments if you are really committed to doing nothing productive for the next 15 minutes. […]
4. October 2016 at 10:28
Engineer, what a concise statement for Trump prediction. Impressive.
Joke:
How many Trumps does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: Just one. He holds the bulb and stands still, while the world revolves around him.
4. October 2016 at 11:03
Chanos has made a great return on shorting China. As he’s explained, many of his positions were against Australian mining companies, for example, which did see large drops in stock values. You sound like those people that claim Michael Pettis has been wrong all all these years.
4. October 2016 at 12:33
McMikep,
Let’s see, Chanos predicts a huge Chinese real estate crash:
“Alexander, who has lived in China for more than 20 years and consults global financial institutions on investing there, said Chinese property prices are up 70 percent in the aggregate since Chanos made his statement in 2010.”
And instead we get a big real estate boom. But he’s somehow “right” about China because he made some money shorting Australian miners.
And as for Pettis, would that be the guy who predicted Chinese RGDP growth would average 3% this decade? The decade is 2/3 over, and growth is averaging closer to 8%. Don’t hold your breath on that prediction either.
There’s a reason I am so uninterested in EMH opponents, you guys won’t admit when you are wrong.
BTW, Pettis is 100 times better than Chanos, and well worth reading on China, as long as he doesn’t try to predict their growth rate.
4. October 2016 at 12:39
I learned something today. We have a lot of pigeons in Vegas. So, I like feeding the little birds and hummingbirds. So, we put out some water for the cats in the neighborhood. That made the pigeons, who were walking under the tree and can fly long distance, go away.
I also learned that Trump believes in the master gene. Very disturbing.
4. October 2016 at 13:06
On the contrary, the best trolling is done in small doses, especially in the form of sufficiently ambiguous statements that you don’t even realize you’ve been had.
Ironically, you could actually improve the quality of the comments section here-which is one of the worst in the econ blogosphere, bar maybe MR-but not by policing this list of trolls, which are all over the map in terms of whether eliminating them individually would improve or worsen the overall quality of discourse here.
4. October 2016 at 15:06
“There’s a reason I am so uninterested in EMH opponents, you guys won’t admit when you are wrong.”
People don’t admit when they are wrong any more. The only consequence you get now– if you are constantly wrong, or lying, and you never admit it– is that you get to be the GOP nominee for president. Most people don’t consider that to be enough of a punishment to stop them from being wrong and not admitting it.
5. October 2016 at 10:10
(H/t slatestarcodex)
A bot called statcheck, developed to find computational problems, detected simple math errors in 13% of over 30,000 peer reviewed psychology papers. Psychology professor Susan fluke decries the algorithm as a “gotcha program” and calls criticism of research outside the peer review process “methodological terrorism.”
Some academics do everything they can to shield themselves from criticism…
while other academics open blogs where they praise their trolls
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/9/30/13077658/statcheck-psychology-replication
http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/
5. October 2016 at 12:29
Andrew, Thanks for that advice on how not to improve my comment section.
7. October 2016 at 15:34
Sumner wrote:
“There’s a reason I am so uninterested in EMH opponents, you guys won’t admit when you are wrong.”
EMH is not a theory that is proved right or wrong based on historical events. Your approach is all wrong.
EMH is not a wait and see theory, where observable events will either prove it right or disprove it. Your comment about admitting you might be wrong about EMH, contingent upon future employment rates next year, is not even a test of EMH. As of now, you have not and likely will not admit whether you are wrong about EMH. You seem to not even understand how you could be wrong about it. And why? Because your belief in EMH is not actually based on observations of historical events. You insist upon that standard for your opponents, but for you the standard is a priori. EMH to you is HOW you think about observations of historical events. Observations do not derive your position on EMH. You use EMH to understand historical data. You start with the idea of “if a new piece of information comes to light, then investors should quickly exploit that information for profit, and doing so removes the possibility of further profit based on that information”. That shapes everything you see in stock indexes.
Want to claim I am again “misrepresenting” your arguments? Years ago you wrote:
“A smart person like Eugene Fama should have been able to come up with both the EMH, and its limits, by just sitting in a room and thinking. Much as David Hume got the QTM by imagining what would happen if everyone in England woke up one morning with twice as much gold in their purses. Or Fisher’s theory of inflation and nominal interest rates. Or Cassel’s purchasing power parity. Or Friedman/Phelps’ natural rate hypothesis. Or Muth and rational expectations. Certain ideas are simply logical, and that’s why I have no doubt that despite all those economists on the left arguing the EMH has been discredited, it will still be taught in every top econ/finance grad program 100 years from now, whereas fiscal stimulus will be long gone from macro textbooks.”
When your position is that EMH can be derived by sitting in one’s armchair, then sorry, but you are saying EMH is not empirical, but a priori. Actual empirical theories cannot be derived a priori.
17. October 2016 at 19:40
You are totally on topic, Bob.
QED
17. October 2016 at 19:44
Scott, it’s what Fama said he believes when interviewed by Russ Roberts on EconTalk. It’s just a fact that Fama has multiple definitions of “EMH” and when pressed he backs off the more provocative definitions.
The history of the research which lies behind the “theory” matters a lot.