It's only uninteresting because economics refuses to be based on anything but the empirical (leading us into the situation we are in now), and so considers things like "math" to be mostly uninteresting "unless you are into that kind of thing".
I looked at markets for a while, this is what i saw. Therefore, it's true.
As I said, there is no reason those efficiencies should be easily correctable - because markets aren't efficient! That's the whole point. It's only in an efficient market that they would be correctable. This is the same as lots of computational and other problems. Lots of instances are easy and heuristics can often work very well. But you will still come up with situations where obviously broken things happen and are hard to make algorithms work.
It's sort of like having a cocktail party conversation about why you can't exceed the speed of light. Except because it's economics, you get stuck because there often isn't any real rigor behind it that you can push on. Just the empirical. Which I get why it's fun to talk about (really!) - without any meaningful rigor, anyone can participate and have fun - got a crazy empirical story? Awesome, that's all you need to prove something in economics! It makes for fun discussions where most people can participate and feel like it's not too hard.
I have no issue with that - my issue is of course that the cocktail party is not distinguishable from the field ;)
Beyond that, arguing they are inexploitable/unpredictable seems equivalent to whether they are efficient (and in most papers is considered equivalent to the efficiency hypothesis). I'm really unsure how you are trying to distinguish it.
Maybe you could formulate it for real and show how it is not equivalent to the efficiency question?
As I said, there is no reason those efficiencies should be easily correctable - because markets aren't efficient! That's the whole point. It's only in an efficient market that they would be correctable. This is the same as lots of computational and other problems. Lots of instances are easy and heuristics can often work very well. But you will still come up with situations where obviously broken things happen and are hard to make algorithms work.
It's sort of like having a cocktail party conversation about why you can't exceed the speed of light. Except because it's economics, you get stuck because there often isn't any real rigor behind it that you can push on. Just the empirical. Which I get why it's fun to talk about (really!) - without any meaningful rigor, anyone can participate and have fun - got a crazy empirical story? Awesome, that's all you need to prove something in economics! It makes for fun discussions where most people can participate and feel like it's not too hard.
I have no issue with that - my issue is of course that the cocktail party is not distinguishable from the field ;)
Beyond that, arguing they are inexploitable/unpredictable seems equivalent to whether they are efficient (and in most papers is considered equivalent to the efficiency hypothesis). I'm really unsure how you are trying to distinguish it. Maybe you could formulate it for real and show how it is not equivalent to the efficiency question?