Economist gets the efficient markets hypothesis wrong

At any rate, the durability and magnitude of the Bitcoin phenomenon, running for nearly 10 years and with a putative value of nearly $US 100 billion, provides us with a very sharp test of the Efficient (financial) Markets Hypothesis. If Bitcoin eventually becomes a currency, the EMH and its supporters will be vindicated, and I (along with quite a few other economists) will have a lot of egg on my face. If the bubble bursts, the roles will be reversed.

Well, no, not really. Not at all in fact.

We face uncertainty. It might succeed and it probably won’t. There’s an option value to the thought that it might succeed. That it doesn’t will not change the point that while we face uncertainty there’s an option value.

7 comments on “Economist gets the efficient markets hypothesis wrong

  1. This bear of little brain doesn’t understand what you’ve written there in the final paragraph. Have you a version in English, please?

  2. I’d say Bitcoin has a very good chance of succeeding as an alternative non-State method of exchange/wealth store, apart from the fact that the States will of course gang up on it in order to destroy it.

  3. Obsessing about Bitcoin is missing the point. Bitcoin blazed the trail and showed how cryptocurrencies could work. It’s not just the horse has bolted; the entire stable block has burnt to the ground.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.