4 ms·

I'm not OP but I sympathize: > Who said this, specifically? What is your point in bringing it up? Sanders. The point in bringing it up is to point out the iro

I'm not OP but I sympathize: > Who said this, specifically? What is your point in bringing it up? Sanders. The point in bringing it up is to point out the irony that Wall Street already does this behind the scenes, but people called the Senator crazy for proposing it. > I'm getting the sense that you'd be in favor of this - can you tell me why, in your own words, you believe we should be trying to "recoup value" from the activities of high frequency traders? Shortest terms I can put this is: our country needs the money that Wall Street siphons off of the economy. We need more government money to educate, house, feed, and care for people. High frequency trading, unlike traditional investment, is not a "mom and pop" thing, it's a tool only accessible to the wealthy to enrich themselves. Thus, we should disincentivize it in order to generate tax revenue and discourage practices that are not accessible to shareholders.

dsacco 9y ago
All you did was move the goalposts... > but people called the Senator crazy for proposing it. Who called him crazy? That is my question. And the corollary to that question - why do we care about this party, and why is it relevant to the point? A lot of people say plenty of idiotic things, but that doesn't mean they have any real authority in the matter. I'm looking for precision and an understanding of why it's relevant. > Shortest terms I can put this is: our country needs the money that Wall Street siphons off of the economy. This is an emotionally loaded claim, and it's also not axiomatic. How precisely does Wall Street "siphon off of the economy" without providing value in exchange? > High frequency trading, unlike traditional investment, is not a "mom and pop" thing, it's a tool only accessible to the wealthy to enrich themselves. High frequency trading is a very small industry compared to all the types of trading that occurs on Wall Street. It has outsize publicity for a variety of reasons, many of which circle back to FUD. Moreover, every single type of trading firm is only accessible to the wealthy - that is very nearly what defines institutional trading. You are no more going to start a discretionary hedge fund than you are going to set up colocation and an FPGA for high frequency trading, which means that HFT is not nearly alone in being inaccessible. You're not actually explaining your point here. You're just repeating claims without defending them. On the contrary, market makers (who almost exclusively use HFT these days), provide liquidity to the market, just as the institutional investors in charge of endowments and pension funds provide value for retail investors' retirement savings.
djoldman 9y ago
> Shortest terms I can put this is: our country needs the money that Wall Street siphons off of the economy. We need more government money to educate, house, feed, and care for people. High frequency trading, unlike traditional investment, is not a "mom and pop" thing, it's a tool only accessible to the wealthy to enrich themselves. Thus, we should disincentivize it in order to generate tax revenue and discourage practices that are not accessible to shareholders. If I understand you correctly, there are a couple issues you're bringing up: 1. Wall Street "siphons" off money from the economy. 2. The US government needs higher revenues. 3. HFT, as distinguished from "traditional investment," only benefits the rich. 4. 1-3 are problems whose best solution is to tax HFT specifically. First, I think it's important to distinguish between "Wall Street" and "HFT." "Wall Street" is composed of the largest banks in the world (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, etc.). Wall Street owns trillions of dollars worth of assets and has income in the 100s of billions of dollars each year. All HFT revenue in the US is estimated at less than $2 billion per year [1]. As for "siphoning" - do you mean to imply that making money by buying and selling a financial asset is somehow cheating someone, unfair, or something else? Or do you think that by sometimes functioning as "middle-men," HFT and Wall Street's are somehow cheating someone, unfair, or some other bad thing? What is "traditional investment?" What do you think of the fact that Wall Street and HFT firms combine to pay many billions of dollars in income taxes? [1] https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000406105/High-frequency_trading%3A_Reaching_the_limits.pdf https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD000...

dsacco 9y ago

All you did was move the goalposts... > but people called the Senator crazy for proposing it. Who called him crazy? That is my question. And the corollary to that question - why do we care about this party, and why is it relevant to the point? A lot of people say plenty of idiotic things, but that doesn't mean they have any real authority in the matter. I'm looking for precision and an understanding of why it's relevant. > Shortest terms I can put this is: our country needs the money that Wall Street siphons off of the economy. This is an emotionally loaded claim, and it's also not axiomatic. How precisely does Wall Street "siphon off of the economy" without providing value in exchange? > High frequency trading, unlike traditional investment, is not a "mom and pop" thing, it's a tool only accessible to the wealthy to enrich themselves. High frequency trading is a very small industry compared to all the types of trading that occurs on Wall Street. It has outsize publicity for a variety of reasons, many of which circle back to FUD. Moreover, every single type of trading firm is only accessible to the wealthy - that is very nearly what defines institutional trading. You are no more going to start a discretionary hedge fund than you are going to set up colocation and an FPGA for high frequency trading, which means that HFT is not nearly alone in being inaccessible. You're not actually explaining your point here. You're just repeating claims without defending them. On the contrary, market makers (who almost exclusively use HFT these days), provide liquidity to the market, just as the institutional investors in charge of endowments and pension funds provide value for retail investors' retirement savings.

djoldman 9y ago

> Shortest terms I can put this is: our country needs the money that Wall Street siphons off of the economy. We need more government money to educate, house, feed, and care for people. High frequency trading, unlike traditional investment, is not a "mom and pop" thing, it's a tool only accessible to the wealthy to enrich themselves. Thus, we should disincentivize it in order to generate tax revenue and discourage practices that are not accessible to shareholders. If I understand you correctly, there are a couple issues you're bringing up: 1. Wall Street "siphons" off money from the economy. 2. The US government needs higher revenues. 3. HFT, as distinguished from "traditional investment," only benefits the rich. 4. 1-3 are problems whose best solution is to tax HFT specifically. First, I think it's important to distinguish between "Wall Street" and "HFT." "Wall Street" is composed of the largest banks in the world (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, etc.). Wall Street owns trillions of dollars worth of assets and has income in the 100s of billions of dollars each year. All HFT revenue in the US is estimated at less than $2 billion per year [1]. As for "siphoning" - do you mean to imply that making money by buying and selling a financial asset is somehow cheating someone, unfair, or something else? Or do you think that by sometimes functioning as "middle-men," HFT and Wall Street's are somehow cheating someone, unfair, or some other bad thing? What is "traditional investment?" What do you think of the fact that Wall Street and HFT firms combine to pay many billions of dollars in income taxes? [1] https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000406105/High-frequency_trading%3A_Reaching_the_limits.pdf https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD000...