6 ms·
I'm not putting words in your mouth; my bias goes under my username, which is as clearly visible as your original post. I don't 'have a problem' with automated
by roc 17y ago
I'm not putting words in your mouth; my bias goes under my username, which is as clearly visible as your original post.
I don't 'have a problem' with automated trading. I'm just opining that frequency and legality, in and of themselves, are not compelling defenses.
Imagine Party A says 'marijuana's awful' and party B says 'everyone's doing it, and it's technically legal because we all have glaucoma'.
I'm pointing out --separate from whether I (dis)agree with A-- that party B isn't going to sway anyone with that approach.
- BrentRitterbeck 17y agoI was not offering a defense. I was offering commentary. I thought that what I wrote would be more acceptable than simply saying that the author clearly doesn't understand finance or how Wall Street operates. Perhaps I should just go back to my usual sledge-hammer comments. At least my intentions are understood when I do that.