[lotsofpulp]

Automation in trading makes all investors wealthier via lower fees. Trading costs basically nothing nowadays, and that is because far fewer people are employed to do it.

Obviously, the people who own the automation will want a cut of the rewards, like any other business.

[patmorgan23]

Automation in trading != HFT algorithms

Obviously NASDAQ and electronic trading systems are a good innovation. But firms basically doing arbitrage or exploiting uneven network latency are not that economically productive.

[eru]

And Jane Street isn't a classic HFT either. Speed isn't their differentiating factor (or at least wasn't in the past).

[rank0]

Absurd statement. Use your big brain CS mind for a second. This is you:

> Inefficient market spreads and network latency is not worth remediating.

[andrepd]

> Inneficient market spreads

Well lowering market spreads is all about increasing the returns for capital, and incenctivising overfinancialisation. It's hardly curing cancer is it?

At worst it's actively harmful if you believe that the current state of turbo-financialised capitalism has its drawbacks.

> Network latency

Not really sure what you're talking about but surely spending billions of dollars to bring rtt latencies to 50 micros or whatever is not really a great use of money and top engineering talent. Again, it's playing an arbitrage game but not really delivering any value.

[rank0]

We just have fundamentally different values. People like you are closeted dictators.

I want liquidity, low spreads, price discovery. You seem to forget that “not delivering any value” is just like y’know according to you…

[andrepd]

Thanks for not addressing any of my concrete points and instead just calling me "a dictator". Lunatic

EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol

[rank0]

lol I said "closeted dictator" for the record. But alrighty why don't we start over and see if we can both argue in good faith. I can certainly be a dick on the internet sometimes.

I honestly can't tell what your concrete points are. I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. If people can find ways to profit off market inefficiencies, they should! The HFT/Quant firms make their arbitrage money (value for them) and all market participants in return see: (non-exhaustive list)

1. Better price discovery 2. Tighter spreads 3. Higher liquidity

Which is value for everyone else.

If your bar is that "all smart people should be working on curing cancer or andrepd-approved endevours" then almost nobody in the economy is providing value. Is my lowly SecEng job at $MEGACORP good enough? What about my buddy who writes firmware for toothbruhes? Are professional starcraft players wasting their talents?

> EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol

This debate has been going on for ages, and it's silly to pretend that it's been settled and everyone agrees with you.

[kqr]

Tighter spreads and higher liquidity is not economically productive? I can see arguments both ways.

[n4r9]

For me, it's about whether that higher liquidity is really worth using top engineering and mathematical talent.

[eru]

Well, that's what we have market price signal for to decide.

[n4r9]

Do you mean that high salaries indicate a demand in the market? Not much argument there, although it is sometimes the case that large companies hire talent purely to starve competition. But what I'm really questioning is whether those high salaries translate to value to society.