Astoundingly silly and faulted analysis. The passive investor brings just the very sort of value-signalling for which the active investors prays. (Or even, "preys.") I hate when idiots think they're cute economists. They're not cute. They're idiots.
,,A passive investor is a parasite. The passive investor simply buys an index fund, sits back and enjoys the show. Since markets mostly go up, the passive investor mostly makes money but contributes nothing to price discovery." This is so absurd, in so many ways, that the only rational explanation is, that the author had one glass too many, during the weekend.
Sorry silvercoin, but your ability to google does not beat economic logic. And the author should know that plagiarizing himself does not lend credibility. Price discovery works as well going down as going up. Arguing about who was first out and who was left holding the bag is arguing against our rights to make independent economic choices, and on occasion, to err. This is really *not* hard. "Grow up; grow a pair; take responsibility." That is unknown to most zerohedge types, who seek to commit all of Life's ills to a conspiracy. Sheeesh.
You mean kinda like the hedgers and speculators in the futures market? The speculators provide liquidity? So are we traders parasites or not?