Munger argued in 2003 that economics was broken by physics envy and willful blindness to psychology. Three Nobel Prizes (Kahneman 2002, Fama/Shiller 2013, Thaler 2017) and the 2008 crisis proved him substantially right. His investment examples check out against SEC filings. The weak point: his implicit claim that skilled investors can routinely exploit inefficiencies is contradicted by the SPIVA data showing 90%+ failure rate among professionals.
So what
Munger’s 2003 critique of academic economics was ahead of its time and has been largely vindicated by the 2008 crisis, Paul Romer’s ‘pseudoscience’ indictment, and the behavioral economics Nobel prizes. His investment examples (See’s, Coca-Cola) are verified by SEC filings. But the SPIVA data creates a paradox: if Munger is right that markets are exploitable, why do 90% of professionals fail? The answer he gives – that most lack interdisciplinary thinking – is unfalsifiable.
Verdict
MostlyAccurate