Well, if we're down to the portion of HFT/speculation that's extracting gains rather than contributing to the economy, we've made it pretty far. As far as robo

Well, if we're down to the portion of HFT/speculation that's extracting gains rather than contributing to the economy, we've made it pretty far. As far as robots running the stock market -- I don't know. Frankly, I'm inclined to be awfully conservative about the stock market at present. If you told me we were going backwards 5 years in technology and there'd be way less money made on the stock market, I'd probably be ok with it, for a few reasons. 1) Frankly, I'd rather be conservative on cutting edge approaches to stock pricing for a little bit. 2) To my mind, the stock market doesn't exist to enrich participants, it exists to efficiently distribute capital. Enriching participants is good motivation, but it shouldn't be legalized gambling and game playing. If an unreasonable share of that capital is going to the console cowboys rather than being distributed to companies and investors (not traders), then something's wrong there. I'm not sure if we're at that point but I don't like the trend. 3) As I said upthread, I don't understand the gains for the economy as a whole of smoothing out the price curve in the sub-second range. I really don't. Anybody who's going to spend a lot of money on something takes more than a second to make up their mind, right? They probably had to get it budgeted and everything. So the subsecond trading on, say, commodities seems to me to be at the expense of actual purchasers of commodities. The gains have to come from somewhere, right? In general, I'd settle for slower, dumber and less profitable day traders if the upshot is less risk to the system, greater portions of investment gains going to grandma and a more deliberately moving stock market. I'd be fine with that state of affairs, despite my general drive towards futurism on anything else.