Hello Jason..

Firstly, I want to address the Active-Passive debate. This is not one of my favourite debating points and I only said that the Active-Passive debate doesn't marshal much evidence for or against unbridled free market capitalism. Reason being, look, this is not a physical science that one controls for all the assumptions and looks at the effects of one changing factor on the output and see it 'happen' in a laboratory. Your conclusion, either way, I think rests on some studies which rely on tenuous assumptions.

I will weigh in briefly on the active-passive topic. Before reaching a conclusion, I think the active-passive research should ideally control for

a) Market maturity
b) Fund manager age and experience
c) Across different time periods
d) Consider a long time interval

In the Indian mutual fund experience, 90+% of the assets under management handsomely beat the benchmark. Even taking fees into account the alpha is significant. So does the Indian experience apply universally? In contrast, should the US experience apply universally?

As fund managers age and gain experience their ability to beat the market increases. Do any of the current research studies control for age and experience factor? How does one control these factors? Is the age of the managers alive now enough to draw conclusions?

Do any of the studies consider data from the 80s, 90s and 00s? So if Peter Lynch could beat the market during his time, does 'active management' apply today? I mean, if active management is proven once, does it need proof every year?

If active management fails today, does it mean there are no managers of Peter Lynch mettle currently? Or is it that managers of PL mettle exist, however, markets have got lawfully difficult to beat unlike before.

I have seen many of the research that try to settle the active-passive debate, focus on short time intervals, say post-2008. Why not a longer period? Is there a standard time interval in the first place?

There are no perfect answers to these questions. Which is why either way I think pulling this subject into the wider debate of market pricing or 'discounting' adds more confusion to what is being discussed already.

Back to the market pricing/discounting..

See, one of the fundamental problems with planners or anything top-down is that firstly such people are far removed from actual market dealings. If not now, they eventually become. Like, you used the phrase 'suppliers versus demanders' at a certain price. Traditionally, economists carry a certain disdain for consumers who they think act without brains, ethics and philosophies.

One of the failures of classical economists was trying to concentrate their efforts on Producers and Government whom they respected and presumed their research could find a buy. Whereas consumers where a scattered mass with no hearts. While you say I am absolutist, on the contrary, I am saying, consumers too have non-materialistic considerations. They are not an automatic order-matching cold-hearted object grabbers. The price-signal is tested against basic needs, ethical, philosophical and religious considerations. The 'subjective valuation' as traditionally defined is a bad economic theory. Buy Low Sell High, works in stock markets and it applies to businesses. But it fails to apply to consumers.

I am stressing on the need to understand human action because your proposition appears to be top-down and is far from reality. And the language certainly appears severely from the Top. Which is why it prompted the USSR examples (like the price of milk per gallon was decided by bureaucrats a few hundred miles away).

I am willing to wait and read the full series to comprehend your views properly.

Thanks for reading and responding to all comments.