|
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| How much will it hurt me? Maybe I'm OK with being hurt through the markets if it means the world is a saner and more fair place? |
| |
| ▲ | orangecat 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, and how does banning short-term trading make the world more fair? | | |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | For one thing because now people who own high-speed low-latency connections to stock markets have no advantage over "normal" people who actually do meaningful work, like being a policeman or nurse. | | |
| ▲ | azan_ an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Price discovery and increasing liquidity is meaningful work. | | | |
| ▲ | logicchains 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >people who actually do meaningful work, like being a policeman Making a sudden event that happened on the other side of the world reflect in the local market price at almost the speed of light is far more meaningful work than going around shooting dark-skinned people. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ambicapter 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Long-term traders don't need the price to be as "efficient" as possible by definition. |
| |
| ▲ | orangecat 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe an extra 1% spread doesn't matter if you buy and hold for 50 years, but for 2 years it absolutely does. |
|
|
| ▲ | cyberax 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > You want short term trading because you want the prices to be as close to efficient as possible But do I want the prices to be as efficient as possible? |
| |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If this whole efficiency argument means I'm going to make $1 more per month while some lousy traders make $100k more per month, then I'd say: to hell with "efficiency". Fairness and wealth equality are more important to me than $1. Also considering that these traders will use their $100k in ways that my $1 will become worth even less. For example by buying all the housing in my neighborhood and thereby increasing my rent. | | |
| ▲ | logicchains 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Without that efficiency it'd be like the old days before electronic trading where you're paying 100x larger fees to a crusty old brokerage any time you want to trade. | | |
| ▲ | amelius an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Doesn't matter. Banning short term trading will also reduce # trade events, so the fees don't matter. | |
| ▲ | cyberax an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would the fees be bigger? The old brokerages had to do manual work to put the bid on the trading floor. Electronic trading doesn't need to go away. The trade itself might take some time instead of being functionally instant, but that's fine. |
| |
| ▲ | azan_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s amazing how successful populism is, even HN is now full of populistic comments. | | |
| ▲ | amelius an hour ago | parent [-] | | What makes your comment better or less "populist" than mine? What does populism even have to do with it? |
|
|
|
