I did not bring up the topic of pension money to argue that it should not be run actively, it was merely an example of what differentiates, say, a hedge fund (which is much more able and suited to the task of eliminating arbitrage) to a "standard" actively run fund of money.

The author, with one hand on his thesaurus and one on his keyboard, takes us through his other arguments which revolve around the active managers being really rich and giving money to orchestras and universities. This seems like such an odd argument to bring into a debate like this and feels like something he was quite desperate to come up with, no?

And don't get me started on the bit about people going to casinos or about the "unrelenting attackers apparently fuelled by 'green grievance'"... The author makes himself look like someone desperately lacking any grounding in the real world, or is it just me?

Also, what about the conclusion? "Investment managers suck, I have no argument against this, but guys, if we continue what we're doing we'll eventually be admired.. or something. Oh, and yeah, adulate us!" (I wonder if he looked up the meaning of that word or if he just took it straight out of the thesaurus..)