For mathematical/quantitative Economics to be a viable field worth developing, it has to possess some analytical merits. On the other hand, if Economics is a viable mean of analyzing the economy, it would be a viable mean of making money in the markets. (Analyze economic changes/policies, bet on the outcome. Interest rates, debt, currency valuation etc) Are economists rich traders? Probably not. Which imply that economic analysis might be no better than random. This means it is not a viable academic field of study. A paradox of sorts? If Economics is rubbish, why does the field exist in academia? If Economics isn't rubbish, it would defeat the Efficient Market Hypothesis and make Economics are must have education for traders. Since rich traders aren't economists, economics is thus rubbish?