Sure - you are arguing for the efficient market hypothesis, which is positively retro of you in light of 2008. Your statement: The ones that are right (whose opinions are correct) "make money and survive."

Which is where I go

- Worldcom

- Enron

- Countrywide

- WaMu

…and point out that up until a couple days before doomsday, the people making money were the ones who thought these companies were sound. So the first problem with the efficient markets hypothesis is windowing - yeah, overall the universe will die of accumulated entropy but that doesn't mean you have a handle on the temperature of Sirius precisely 80 million years from now.

I also pointed out my friend at RealNetworks, who were absolutely killing it in 2000 yet the market just hated on 'em. Their lack of valuation impacted their financing and ended up curtailing their business because the market decided they weren't cool enough.

So what I'm saying, in very simple terms, is the stock market is a popularity contest, not a "perfect information" contest, particularly as "perfect information" is considered insider trading and is banned by the SEC.

It's kind of ironic, if I may say so, to use the efficient market hypothesis as it pertains to HFT. The whole raison d'etre of HFT is to take advantage of the inefficiencies of the markets as experienced by the rubes and marks. As I recall, wasn't Goldman Sachs busted hard-core for basically using the gimmick from The Sting in their HFT - in other words, delaying their reports to the floor and arbitraging the difference?