> 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?

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 an hour 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 25 minutes 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 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What makes your comment better or less "populist" than mine? What does populism even have to do with it?