4 ms·

I find the "talented people not fulfilling their potential" argument terrible. That's often cited as one of the costs of HFT, but its really true of a lot of h

I find the "talented people not fulfilling their potential" argument terrible. That's often cited as one of the costs of HFT, but its really true of a lot of human pursuits. It just so happens that the prevailing sentiment is that finance, and HFT in particular are particularly immmoral, so its a popular notion; I find it as "bad" that hordes of talented engineers work on optimizing ad revenue for Google. Humans will always be underemployed from some perspective ("Oh but she could be doing X"). Penalizing them for not operating in a way that is consistent with your (or anyone's) world view is far more sinister.

pg 16y ago
The fact that smart people's time is also wasted on other types of work doesn't mean there is no such thing as wasting time. Do you really believe it's meaningless to talk about time being misspent? Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random?
- aurem1 16y ago
  I think the point here is that there is no effective standard by which we can define "wasting time". Many people would consider a lot of the startups you fund as "wasting time". Indeed any particular activity could appear useless. But we prefer a market-driven system because in aggregate we are worse than the marketplace at identifying such activities.
- joebadmo 16y ago
  I imagine he would call the murdering part sinister, as opposed to the time spent doing something other than what is optimal. I agree with the GP that the opportunity cost argument is so wholly dependent on the judgment of the debated activity that it doesn't really pertain one way or the other. That said, HFT doesn't strike me as something that adds value to the economy.
  - pg 16y ago
    Baberuth and I are talking about whether it's sinister for A to criticize B's actions, not whether B's actions are sinister.
    - baberuth 16y ago
      Correct pg, though for the record, I do also avoid murder whenever possible. A criticising B is not a problem. A preventing B from doing something is sinister (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).
    - joebadmo 16y ago
      "Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random?" I'm saying it depends on what A is criticizing about B. It is not sinister for A to criticize B's action. I'm not sure if it's sinister for A to criticize B's misallocation of time spent. It's a weird thing to think about. I think it's weird to think about because, as was my point earlier, the judgment of whether the time was misspent is wholly dependent on the judgment of the way the time was spent.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  This is a really weird response. Classical liberalism, and its descendants, have had various answers to this question for a long time. My personal opinion is that one is obliged to act in a way such that the world is not disadvantaged by one presence, but further obligations are dubious. It's not that I'm opposed to using one's talent "for good", it's that other people telling them what to do with their talent has been shown to be a very dangerous game. Particularly if the other people are motivated by the moral fashions of the times.
  - pg 16y ago
    The idea that there can be good and bad ways of spending your time is a separate question from whether other people are telling you what they are, or whether you are deciding for yourself.
    - cynicalkane 16y ago
      I understand the difference, but let's consider the context of the claim. Title: Should high-frequency trading be banned? OP: How about a tax on capital gains that is inversely proportional to the time the financial instrument is held? The biggest cost HFT imposes on the world is the brain drain. This thread isn't about discussing the best use of talent, it's about whether talent should be forced to not do certain things, and your post reads naturally in that context. You: Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random? I read this as an equivocation, as though misuse of talent falls into the same category as murdering people.
      - pg 16y ago
        As often happens on forums, I'm responding to the comment I replied to. And I'm only saying what I actually said. I'm not saying HFT should be banned; I have no opinion about that either way. But I do feel it is a waste of talent. I used murder as an instance of misuse of talent. It is an extreme case, obviously, but if you want to prove the existence of something (in this case the possibility of wasting one's talents), the fastest way to do it is to use an extreme example, since for existence proofs any example will do.
- baberuth 16y ago
  No, its not meaningless -- A lot of good comes from discourse, but its my opinion that HFT takes a disproportionate amount of flak for their real market impact. The financial sector at large is massive [1], and people seem to think that HFT is proportional in size, but its actually quite small, weighing in at ~2Bn in annual profits [2], which is a blip compared to Google's AdSense revenues. Google does all sorts of good things too though, so I'm not saying that we should reallocate all of Google's engineers to curing cancer, but I think the amount of discourse allocated to vilifying HFT and imagining ways to make "smart people do other things" is out of control. Edit: Got to read pg's response to @joebadmo about what the dispute is -- No, I don't think its sinister to criticise. I think that's productive and great things start with discourse. I _do_ worry that when issues get blown out of hand people to change the lives of others in ways to coerce them to operate in ways congruent with their moral code. The criticism is fine, but exacting policy to prevent others from doing amoral things is problematic. The (likely bad) analogue for this is European and American cultural imperialism. Obviously I don't think HFT is "immoral" as others have stated. (I do also think that HFTraders are compensated disproportionately highly w.r.t. their contribution to society, but that isn't unique to HFT's and is far more pronounced in other subfields in finance, and possibly startupdom). [1] http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends-don%E2%80%99t-let-friends-get-into-finance/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends-don%E2%80%99t-let-f... [2] http://www.tradeworx.com/TWX-SEC-2010.pdf http://www.tradeworx.com/TWX-SEC-2010.pdf
yummyfajitas 16y ago
There is a significant difference between optimizing ads and HFT. By optimizing ad revenues, you are increasing the number of people who find a product which they find valuable. This is useful - some people are better off than they would be otherwise. A significant portion of HFT is simply about winning a race. The first to trade gets the benefits. Doing a better job of HFT merely redistributes the benefits of trade rather than creating them. (Of course, there are other more useful aspects of HFT. Providing liquidity where none existed before is useful, and providing a better bid when you lost the race (i.e., if you lost the race to bid $10.01 first, you can win the race by bidding $10.02) is also useful. But I don't think the criticism of wasted effort is off the mark.)
- baberuth 16y ago
  Your point then that Adsense is "significantly different" seems to rely on the notion that it creates value (aiding the discovery process) rather than "merely redistribut[ing] the benefits of the trade". You've basically already pointed out that HFT has value of some sort to some people (other than the guys who rake in the cash), so that makes it harder for me to see what the significant difference is. The way I see this is: 2 groups of people (goog engineers and hfts) engaging in activities that deliver value to some people (and annoy the hell out of others). Should we consider acting in ways to prevent them from pursuing their activities; if so, _why_ are we doing that, and are we even targeting the more egregious transgression? The "Is HFT good" debate is distinct from the point I'm making , so I'd rather have that in another thread. yummyfajitas, I'd be happy to chat with you offline about that, or in person anywhere in NYC.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    The only significant difference I would argue for is a matter of degree. The job of an Adwords programmer is mainly delivering better ads (rather than simply moving equivalent ads to the top), while the job of an HFT programmer is mainly about being the first to trade. Some HFT is beneficial. Too much wastes talent, but is otherwise harmless. I wouldn't advocate heavy handed regulatory solutions, such as banning all HFT - some HFT is useful, and have no faith in the ability of regulators to get the right balance. I'm just giving my perspective that the wasted talent argument isn't a crazy one. Always interested in meeting new people, will send you an email.
euroclydon 16y ago
It makes a lot more sense if you think about it not as talent being wasted, but as some activities being unwisely lucrative. I don't know much about HFT, but if it's not part of the mainstream purpose of the exchange, then it should be throttled.

pg 16y ago

The fact that smart people's time is also wasted on other types of work doesn't mean there is no such thing as wasting time. Do you really believe it's meaningless to talk about time being misspent? Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random?

aurem1 16y ago
I think the point here is that there is no effective standard by which we can define "wasting time". Many people would consider a lot of the startups you fund as "wasting time". Indeed any particular activity could appear useless. But we prefer a market-driven system because in aggregate we are worse than the marketplace at identifying such activities.
joebadmo 16y ago
I imagine he would call the murdering part sinister, as opposed to the time spent doing something other than what is optimal. I agree with the GP that the opportunity cost argument is so wholly dependent on the judgment of the debated activity that it doesn't really pertain one way or the other. That said, HFT doesn't strike me as something that adds value to the economy.
- pg 16y ago
  Baberuth and I are talking about whether it's sinister for A to criticize B's actions, not whether B's actions are sinister.
  - baberuth 16y ago
    Correct pg, though for the record, I do also avoid murder whenever possible. A criticising B is not a problem. A preventing B from doing something is sinister (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).
  - joebadmo 16y ago
    "Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random?" I'm saying it depends on what A is criticizing about B. It is not sinister for A to criticize B's action. I'm not sure if it's sinister for A to criticize B's misallocation of time spent. It's a weird thing to think about. I think it's weird to think about because, as was my point earlier, the judgment of whether the time was misspent is wholly dependent on the judgment of the way the time was spent.
cynicalkane 16y ago
This is a really weird response. Classical liberalism, and its descendants, have had various answers to this question for a long time. My personal opinion is that one is obliged to act in a way such that the world is not disadvantaged by one presence, but further obligations are dubious. It's not that I'm opposed to using one's talent "for good", it's that other people telling them what to do with their talent has been shown to be a very dangerous game. Particularly if the other people are motivated by the moral fashions of the times.
- pg 16y ago
  The idea that there can be good and bad ways of spending your time is a separate question from whether other people are telling you what they are, or whether you are deciding for yourself.
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    I understand the difference, but let's consider the context of the claim. Title: Should high-frequency trading be banned? OP: How about a tax on capital gains that is inversely proportional to the time the financial instrument is held? The biggest cost HFT imposes on the world is the brain drain. This thread isn't about discussing the best use of talent, it's about whether talent should be forced to not do certain things, and your post reads naturally in that context. You: Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random? I read this as an equivocation, as though misuse of talent falls into the same category as murdering people.
    - pg 16y ago
      As often happens on forums, I'm responding to the comment I replied to. And I'm only saying what I actually said. I'm not saying HFT should be banned; I have no opinion about that either way. But I do feel it is a waste of talent. I used murder as an instance of misuse of talent. It is an extreme case, obviously, but if you want to prove the existence of something (in this case the possibility of wasting one's talents), the fastest way to do it is to use an extreme example, since for existence proofs any example will do.
baberuth 16y ago
No, its not meaningless -- A lot of good comes from discourse, but its my opinion that HFT takes a disproportionate amount of flak for their real market impact. The financial sector at large is massive [1], and people seem to think that HFT is proportional in size, but its actually quite small, weighing in at ~2Bn in annual profits [2], which is a blip compared to Google's AdSense revenues. Google does all sorts of good things too though, so I'm not saying that we should reallocate all of Google's engineers to curing cancer, but I think the amount of discourse allocated to vilifying HFT and imagining ways to make "smart people do other things" is out of control. Edit: Got to read pg's response to @joebadmo about what the dispute is -- No, I don't think its sinister to criticise. I think that's productive and great things start with discourse. I _do_ worry that when issues get blown out of hand people to change the lives of others in ways to coerce them to operate in ways congruent with their moral code. The criticism is fine, but exacting policy to prevent others from doing amoral things is problematic. The (likely bad) analogue for this is European and American cultural imperialism. Obviously I don't think HFT is "immoral" as others have stated. (I do also think that HFTraders are compensated disproportionately highly w.r.t. their contribution to society, but that isn't unique to HFT's and is far more pronounced in other subfields in finance, and possibly startupdom). [1] http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends-don%E2%80%99t-let-friends-get-into-finance/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends-don%E2%80%99t-let-f... [2] http://www.tradeworx.com/TWX-SEC-2010.pdf http://www.tradeworx.com/TWX-SEC-2010.pdf

yummyfajitas 16y ago

There is a significant difference between optimizing ads and HFT. By optimizing ad revenues, you are increasing the number of people who find a product which they find valuable. This is useful - some people are better off than they would be otherwise. A significant portion of HFT is simply about winning a race. The first to trade gets the benefits. Doing a better job of HFT merely redistributes the benefits of trade rather than creating them. (Of course, there are other more useful aspects of HFT. Providing liquidity where none existed before is useful, and providing a better bid when you lost the race (i.e., if you lost the race to bid $10.01 first, you can win the race by bidding $10.02) is also useful. But I don't think the criticism of wasted effort is off the mark.)

baberuth 16y ago
Your point then that Adsense is "significantly different" seems to rely on the notion that it creates value (aiding the discovery process) rather than "merely redistribut[ing] the benefits of the trade". You've basically already pointed out that HFT has value of some sort to some people (other than the guys who rake in the cash), so that makes it harder for me to see what the significant difference is. The way I see this is: 2 groups of people (goog engineers and hfts) engaging in activities that deliver value to some people (and annoy the hell out of others). Should we consider acting in ways to prevent them from pursuing their activities; if so, _why_ are we doing that, and are we even targeting the more egregious transgression? The "Is HFT good" debate is distinct from the point I'm making , so I'd rather have that in another thread. yummyfajitas, I'd be happy to chat with you offline about that, or in person anywhere in NYC.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The only significant difference I would argue for is a matter of degree. The job of an Adwords programmer is mainly delivering better ads (rather than simply moving equivalent ads to the top), while the job of an HFT programmer is mainly about being the first to trade. Some HFT is beneficial. Too much wastes talent, but is otherwise harmless. I wouldn't advocate heavy handed regulatory solutions, such as banning all HFT - some HFT is useful, and have no faith in the ability of regulators to get the right balance. I'm just giving my perspective that the wasted talent argument isn't a crazy one. Always interested in meeting new people, will send you an email.

euroclydon 16y ago

It makes a lot more sense if you think about it not as talent being wasted, but as some activities being unwisely lucrative. I don't know much about HFT, but if it's not part of the mainstream purpose of the exchange, then it should be throttled.