Since the beginning of the Great Financial Crisis, I have met too many PhD Economists to count who accept the idea opacity in the financial markets is beneficial.  If true, then all of economics is much ado about nothing.

Why?

The core concept in economics is through a series of exchanges between buyers and sellers we get an optimal allocation of resources.  What the economists arguing for opacity are explicitly saying is information is irrelevant in achieving this optimal allocation.

Is there any reason other than luck to think exchanges in the presence of imperfect information yield the identical outcome to exchanges in the presence of perfect information?  None that I am aware of, but then, I am not a PhD Economist.