"market inefficiency" is an incoherent phrase

Efficient is a term used to describe a course of action taken to achieve a goal. I don't personally know what the goal of the market is. Considering the market is a term given to a bunch of free individuals pursuing their values, it is unclear that their goals would overlap in a way that a coherent term can even be given to the "aggregate goals of free individuals". So we don't know what the goal of all free individuals is, we don't know all the actions that free individuals take to go about achieving those goals, therefore market inefficiency is incoherent.

I've never heard an argument made for "market inefficiency" that amounted to anything more than: "Free individuals aren't acting in a way that I would personally prefer for them to act."

First off I will begin with a few clarifying terms, some of which conflict with my opponent's understanding of them:

Market - the world of commercial activity where goods and services are bought and sold.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Efficient - being effective without wasting time or effort or expense; or the most effective way.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Effective - able to accomplish a purpose.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Securities - a tranferable financial instrument entitling the owner to specified types of financial benefits. It may take the form of shares of corporate stock or mutual funds, bonds issued by corporations
or governmental agencies, stock options or other options to buy and sell, and other kinds of formal investment instruments.
http://www.financingwaterforall.org...
~

Using these terms I would contend that the goal of the market is to get products into the hands of customers in a way that would allow the producer/seller to continue to sell their products. This goal is undermined when the market is performing inefficiently.

Market efficiency is a term that basically means that the value of a company's securities accurately describes the price of those securities. The inverse of this, market inefficiency, occurs when the price of securities does not accurately reflect the value of those securities. A great example of an inefficient market would be that of America during the years directly preceding the Great Depression. During this time many speculators were purchasing the stock of various companies which drove their prices high while their values remained almost universally lower than than this price [1, 2].

Therefore market efficiency does not refer to the actions of those involved in the market, but the prices of securities effectively representing their value.
~

I conclude my opening argument with the contention that 'market inefficiency' is a completely coherent term and await his response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.gusmorino.com...

Your definition of market is too narrow. For example, your definition *seems* to exclude me trading some of my free time to watch a movie with my g/f in return for her letting me hit that later on in the day. (trades/exchanges don't have to be explicit, nor does the scope have to be limited).

The problem is that without a stated goal, which you've PROVIDED for these purposes, market inefficiency is a fragment. You can contend that the goal of "the market" is to get products into the hands of customers...but there's no way to prove that. Have you surveyed every individual actor in this market? Mises would say that the goal of every individual in the market is to achieve a higher value at the expense of a lower value. And when you take into account that value is subjective even Mises's more apt description of the goal of the market is almost meaningless because we'd still have to go about surveying every individual actor in the market at every single moment to know what higher value that individual was pursuing at that moment. And even at that point, unless every individual was pursuing the same goal at every moment then what kind of label could we give to a shmorgishborg of individual pursuits?

The problem with your GD example and your second to last paragraph/sentence is that you're ignoring that value is subjective.

I thank my opponent for his response and apologize for my late one.

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///Your definition of market is too narrow. For example, your definition *seems* to exclude me trading some of my free time to watch a movie with my g/f in return for her letting me hit that later on in the day.///

I would say that it does, because I personally don't think that that your quest to have sex with your girlfriend falls under the scope of the market. Also, it is not 'my' definition. It is the most contextually appropriate of those that I found, and none of the others would include your scenario either.
~

/// [Second Paragraph] ///

Here you're saying that the market can not have a goal because it would be impossible to make sure that every person participating had the same goal, but when you think about it my goal would fit perfectly with my definition of the market. The seller sells to the buyer, and that seller then gains a specific revenue. If that revenue generates a profit he/she can continue to sell their product. If it does not generate profit then the seller is losing money and will eventually pull out of the market. The fact that the individual may or may not want to make money is irrelevant. A goal's motivation for achieving a goal has no bearing on the contents of that goal.
~

///The problem with your GD example and your second to last paragraph/sentence is that you're ignoring that value is subjective.///

True, value is ultimately subjective, but that does not mean that there is no objective way to gauge a thing's worth. For instance Precious metals such as gold and silver have values. A person can then choose to base their purchase price for these items based on their value.
~

I await my opponent's response.

I extend my arguments.

I extend my arguments.

I extend my arguments and urge a Con vote.