[jgunaratne]

In developing countries many of the best and brightest leave. Society in those countries finds it harder to advance and improve without talent to drive innovation. In the developed world, the talent is there, but it's used inefficiently. Would society be better off if smart people directed their energy towards developing vaccines instead of high frequency trading? The writer of the article thinks so, but the incentive systems direct talent towards the latter activity.

[wobbly_bush]

In developing countries the best and brightest can't do much without a supporting eco system. For example, several Indians come to the US and get jobs as software engineers in the best companies. But the same employees wouldn't be able to produce similar work while working from India in the same companies (anecdotal evidence) as more is needed for a functioning team than just developers. This is the case for most jobs.

[LatteLazy]

I get the thrust of the article. I just think he's totally misunderstood the world. In America, if you are one of the best and brightest (or if you're not) you're on your own. No one will pay for your education. But then, when you're done, you don't owe anyone else. If you want to go do HFT, that's up to you. There is no social argument to be made there. In Europe, life is different.

The same logic applies to his "meritocracy" soap box: if America was a meritocracy then... Oh wait it's not so why would I complete a sentence based on a false premis?

And that's without getting into whether we actually need more vaccines or whether HFT is useful even if you don't know why...