High-speed trading firms rob traditional investors

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Fri, 07 Dec 2012 7:24 pm

I'm quite taken aback by the generally rabid commie sentiment shown on this topic, by people who have themselves followed the $-trail to Singapore.

The final irony is that Sergei, who likely comes from a former-communist country, is the only one on the side of the free market.

You really couldn't make it up!

TGIF!

Post by **Strong Eagle** » Fri, 07 Dec 2012 7:35 pm

JR8 wrote:I'm quite taken aback by the generally rabid commie sentiment shown on this topic, by people who have themselves followed the $-trail to Singapore.

The final irony is that Sergei, who likely comes from a former-communist country, is the only one on the side of the free market.

You really couldn't make it up!

TGIF!

Program trading is a fine example of why "free markets" need to be regulated. Capitalism is amoral... all that matters is the profit. People need to judge whether actions taken under capitalism create beneficial or detrimental effects for society and the economy and regulate accordingly.

I judge the entire trading community to still be nearly out of control. Actions of a few should not be able to create the kinds of distress felt by the entire world... actions that caused a financial crash and were motivated purely by greed... or, if you will, amoral profiteering.

Sergei82 · Post by **Sergei82** » Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:00 pm

Strong Eagle wrote:People need to judge whether actions taken under capitalism create beneficial or detrimental effects for society and the economy and regulate accordingly.

I judge the entire trading community to still be nearly out of control. Actions of a few should not be able to create the kinds of distress felt by the entire world... actions that caused a financial crash and were motivated purely by greed... or, if you will, amoral profiteering.

Judge how and who will judge? In USSR government judged, USSR collapsed.

How about HRs? They don't create a tangible product, so why do you think their actions are beneficial for society? Lots of pros and cons.

Real estate agent - same basket.

Companies that computerize trading... how much different? Are you sure they don't create any benefits?

Did HFT create great depression in US? IT boom and burst in early 2000s - did HFTs already exist? (well they did, but can you compare it with what we have now?) Collapse of USSR - HFT's hands in blood? (you try to do it there - immediately jail, then PR for Siberia)
Where else those bastards been? Toppling Greece 1,5 thnds years ago and Roman empire a bit later?

Let take all people who involved in HFT, put them to the wall and shoot in the head. Are you sure recessions will be gone forever?

Are you really sure this recession is created by HFT?

I'm not sure in any of those...

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:24 am

Program trading is a fine example of why "free markets" need to be regulated.

> They are. But I have difficulty seeing the boundaries of your argument. Should someone trading on e-Bay be somehow regulated? Buying something under ‘’’fair value’’’ at an estate or car-boot sale should be illegal? A farmer selling his crop should be forced by law to sell at his nearest market, rather than seeking the best price? Where does it stop?

Capitalism is amoral... all that matters is the profit.

> That sounds dreadfully cynical to me. You could look at it the other way: Without profit, most businesses would not exist, I mean what would be the point? For some reason parasitism comes to mind, a well evolved parasite benefits from (you could say taxes) rather than kills it’s host. Lol... you could make an analogy with 70s Detroit auto-workers. Another angle on it is that no citizenry has ever voted in communism.

People need to judge whether actions taken under capitalism create beneficial or detrimental effects for society and the economy and regulate accordingly.

> I beg your pardon but you’ve lost me, which people?

I judge the entire trading community to still be nearly out of control.

> So companies shouldn’t be allowed to have Treasury departments?

Actions of a few should not be able to create the kinds of distress felt by the entire world...

> So you’re saying politicians should be regulated?

actions that caused a financial crash and were motivated purely by greed... or, if you will, amoral profiteering.

> As human beings we are inherently selfish, or ‘greedy’ if you like. True altruism is rare enough, especially when the recipient is unknown to you. When most people give $1 to a beggar I’ll wager 95% have an expectation of it being acknowledged; but thus it is an exchange rather than a one-way gift*. The recipient gets to buy some food, the giver gets to feel good about himself for a while. I expect most Americans take a tax write-off on their charitable donations... but you could make a case that that is a selfish thing to do.

I’d love to chew on this one with you over a few beers. I hope you don’t do any work for banks/finance companies, just outfits where the noble workers toil with their hands, and seek no profit!

Have a good weekend!

p.s. Is 'survival of the fittest' right wing ?

* There is one country where for this precise reason beggars do not acknowledge gifts. IIRC it is Japan, and it derives from Confucianism.

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:36 am

How about HRs? They don't create a tangible product, so why do you think their actions are beneficial for society? Lots of pros and cons.

Sure we do. We create a tangible working environment whereby the employer get an employee that will add bottom line to the company and the employee gets a pay package that allows him to also help his bottom line, at least to an agreeable amount. That's why HR is used to create an employment package and negotiated deals. So both win. If both win, society wins as well.

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 4:30 am

'Epitaph for the eighties? "there is no such thing as society"'
------------------------------------------
Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to
Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987
---
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
---

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 6:57 am

Now I know where the Singaporean citizens got their mindset!

earthfriendly · Post by **earthfriendly** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 8:53 am

A rare breed. John Bogle.

"Of course Vanguard pays its managers and executives. But instead of paying out profits to an owner or shareholders, the company's gains are instead realized by lowering costs. Got it? Meaning Bogle has built Vanguard into a global behemoth and yet not become fabulously wealthy. Which is a big reason no one else has seen fit to create another Vanguard. To do so, you'd have to be a true believer. And not many people are."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/ ... d=HP_River

v4jr4 · Post by **v4jr4** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 9:38 am

If making too much profit is something "strange", and there's no such perfect system to begin with (or there is, but I'm not aware of), it sounds like we need to try from scratch (i.e. barter system, but even with this, no guarantee that "justice" can be served). Being said, communism doesn't guarantee that "the rank of wealth" won't exist.

Even being a philanthropist, take Buffett for example, it doesn't mean that he can be labelled with greed tag although he gets a lot of money

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 9:55 am

JR8 wrote:I'm quite taken aback by the generally rabid commie sentiment shown on this topic, by people who have themselves followed the $-trail to Singapore.

The final irony is that Sergei, who likely comes from a former-communist country, is the only one on the side of the free market.

You really couldn't make it up!

TGIF!

Nice you have noticed. And this is not the first time and not only when it comes to money but also human rights. Experiencing these two different words gives much better perspective.

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:03 am

v4jr4 wrote:If making too much profit is something "strange", and there's no such perfect system to begin with (or there is, but I'm not aware of), it sounds like we need to try from scratch (i.e. barter system, but even with this, no guarantee that "justice" can be served). Being said, communism doesn't guarantee that "the rank of wealth" won't exist.

It will not work unless you are going to reengineer the human race what will not work neither.

v4jr4 · Post by **v4jr4** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:16 am

x9200 wrote:
v4jr4 wrote:If making too much profit is something "strange", and there's no such perfect system to begin with (or there is, but I'm not aware of), it sounds like we need to try from scratch (i.e. barter system, but even with this, no guarantee that "justice" can be served). Being said, communism doesn't guarantee that "the rank of wealth" won't exist.
It will not work unless you are going to reengineer the human race what will not work neither.

Bingo. Or maybe, 21 Dec 2012 is the day for that

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:41 am

The 21 Dec 2012 doomsday is not going to happen as some of the food or personal care products got the expiration date beyond that and making false promise to the consumers would be illegal.

Post by **Strong Eagle** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:41 pm

JR8 wrote:'Epitaph for the eighties? "there is no such thing as society"'
------------------------------------------
Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to
Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987
---
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
---

If Margaret Thatcher is correct, then corporations cannot possibly have the status of "personhood" as they do in the USA.

People band together to exercise power greater than the individual in the form of governments, societies, corporations, and interest groups. Corporations band individuals together to engage in capitalism. Other individuals band together to control the excesses of uncontrolled corporations and capitalism.

The financial industry is not nearly controlled enough... witness the crashes we have experienced caused entirely by dealing in financial instruments... prima facie evidence that the "system" is run amok.

Sergei82 · Post by **Sergei82** » Sat, 08 Dec 2012 1:42 pm

Let it crash. It won't evolve otherwise. In any case, they don't put a knife to your throat to force you to take a credit.

But that's not about HFT anymore, isn't it?

If not financial industry, there would've been jungle instead of Singapore as it is now. So maybe it's not so bad.

SINGAPORE EXPATS FORUM
Singapore Expat Forum and Message Board for Expats in Singapore & Expatriates Relocating to Singapore

High-speed trading firms rob traditional investors

Who is online