5 ms·
So something that produces nothing of value to civilization. Gotcha.
by justeleblanc 3y ago
So something that produces nothing of value to civilization. Gotcha.
- atemerev 3y agoWell, I assume you want to sell your hard-earned stocks of civilization-helping companies sometimes...
- justeleblanc 3y agoNope. I'd rather there not be a thing called a stock market at all.
- nequo 3y agoDo you just plan to save your money in dollar bills hidden inside a pillow until you retire? If you want to invest it in any way, you probably want to avoid floating point numbers for keeping track of it.
- justeleblanc 3y agoI'd prefer living in a world where social security is enough for me not to worry about things like "saving money".
- atemerev 3y ago[flagged]
- epgui 3y agoSo no pensions, sovereign wealth funds, or scholarship funds? And by what mechanism is capital allocated?
- justeleblanc 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
- Dylan16807 3y agoHigh frequency traders effectively charge money to provide liquidity. But they provide far more than I need. I'm not worried about liquidity when I eventually sell those stocks, and if I could opt out of buying extra liquidity I definitely would.
- kragen 3y agomore liquidity in a security drives spreads down, not up, so you have the effect backwards
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhat in particular do you think I have backwards? If I have a medium size order, then even though they lower the spread they also front-run and limit how much I can buy at that price. So I'd rather have them not be there. If I have a tiny order, then I don't care what the spread is within reasonable bounds, and I still don't want them to be there.
- kragen 3y agooh, well, if you're a speculator, often you really do lose money to hfts because they're better speculators than you, but it's unclear why anybody outside your immediate family should care about that if you're an investor, otoh, the lower spread and greater liquidity means timely execution costs you less, not more. you aren't paying them for liquidity; they're paying you, or rather you're paying them, but much less than the spread you'd've paid an old-style open outcry market maker (do you even remember markets before decimalization? minimum spread 12.5 cents) of course you do need to execute intelligently; you can't just plop a million-dollar order in a hundred-million-a-day market and expect the market not to move against you
- Dylan16807 3y ago> of course you do need to execute intelligently; you can't just plop a million-dollar order in a hundred-million-a-day market and expect the market not to move against you It's fine for the market to move against big orders, I just want the movement to, like, take one second. I don't want anyone to change their position in response to an order that hasn't even resolved. > (do you even remember markets before decimalization? minimum spread 12.5 cents) Well I'm not suggesting we undo that. > if you're an investor, otoh, the lower spread and greater liquidity means timely execution costs you less, not more. you aren't paying them for liquidity; they're paying you, or rather you're paying them, but much less than the spread you'd've paid an old-style open outcry market maker In this scenario I'm a long-term investor so the cost means nothing to me. So it's a matter of whether I want HFTs to profit, and I don't, because their actions are often not win-win. If HFT worked somewhat differently I wouldn't mind them the same way.
- Zpalmtree 3y agoliquid markets are a very good thing for civilization