This article basically repeats old economic saws of dubious validity. The counter argument is Warren Buffett. Last I looked at it (going back to his Buffett Partnership days), he beat the market every year but one for his first 30 or 40 years. Even better, he was beating the market by an average of 20% a year during his partnership days, and something like 10% a year during his first 20 years running Berkshire Hathaway.
It's not only statistically impossible for Buffett to be a fluke, it's statistically impossible for him not to possess a a skill providing a substantial edge in market investing. Not a "1% a year" type skill.
Nowadays and for the last 20 years or so, Buffett has been managing hundreds of billions of dollars. The immense size of his portfolio restricts his opportunities to a far smaller pool of potential investments and his edge over the market has clearly declined because of that restriction. But he's still beating the market the vast majority of the time.
It's not only statistically impossible for Buffett to be a fluke, it's statistically impossible for him not to possess a a skill providing a substantial edge in market investing. Not a "1% a year" type skill.
Nowadays and for the last 20 years or so, Buffett has been managing hundreds of billions of dollars. The immense size of his portfolio restricts his opportunities to a far smaller pool of potential investments and his edge over the market has clearly declined because of that restriction. But he's still beating the market the vast majority of the time.