[gizmo]

I disagree. It is an attempt to change the subject from the object level: "is HFT harming society and do we need more transparency or regulation" to the meta level: "if we have to do something about HFT, then why not address X, Y, Z also?".

It's not a legitimate argument because it can be used to derail any conversion that criticizes one particular aspect of society.

It goes without saying that there are moral questions to be raised about facebook acquisitions and compensation in fields outside of finance. But it's not part of this conversation.

[rayiner]

That's not the argument. The argument is: "if this mode of reasoning is valid, and pursuant to it we must do something about HFT, then we would also feel compelled to do something about X, Y, and Z as well. But because we don't feel compelled to do something about X, Y, and Z, that implies that the mode of reasoning is not valid."

In other words, he disagrees with the premise that compensation need bear some relation to economic value created. Empirically, that's a premise that we as a society reject.

[kasey_junk]

See I think the question "is HFT harming society and do we need more transparency or regulation" is much clearer and easier to debate about than "does HFT make more money than it's value to society".

When we have that debate I'd like it to be informed about what does and does not actually happen with HFT and not bogeyman scare stories. I'd also like that debate to consider the pro's and con's of the system it replaced and the unintended consequences of any regulation we introduce.