Posted on 04/14/2012 9:55:59 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
You just don't have the several hundred thousand dollars per year to invest to get it.
You gotta pay to play.
Currently? A trade decision (based on some kind of running average or other algo) is made in microseconds.
7: division fallacy, as obvious and deliberate as it gets
11: moving the goalposts
20: composition fallacy
My #8 here is a good start for your question.
Thanks for your help, FReinds - you are correct. I didn’t have a full understanding.
If latency between systems allows someone to see someone else’s trade request and act on it before it is fulfilled, then that ain’t right.
My question remains, but I neglected to go past zero seconds into negative time periods. ;)
Your figure is extremely low ball. And no it is wrong. It is like saying if a gambler can afford a special camera to see through the other players cards then that is OK.
Take Nascar for example. There are rules and limits as to what you can do. If you cheat them and get caught then you are in big trouble. Even though some drivers have the money to cheat if they want to. Some do not. And the rules are to make it reasonably fair to determine who has the best team and driver. Not who has the most money.
In an honest and just society then money should not be able to buy you everything. The only advantage that People like Goldman should have is the fact that they can afford to hire a lot of people to research how to invest.
Rigging the machinery is not a just option.
The bankers and the media which is basically owned by the banks(or those who profit from these kinds of trades) do not want you to see the truth. Because then you would see as you have that it is just plain wrong. And they would stand to loose a lot of ill gained money. It is great that they are not fooling you anymore. Have a great day.
You accused me of trolling (for asking an honest question, which you are apparently only able to answer with ad hominem attacks). The onus is on you to prove I was trolling. You can't — because I wasn't.
(You flatly stated that HFC is a “crime” — a word that has specific legal meaning. I politely pointed out that it's not actually a crime. I never stated any opinion about whether or not it should be a crime — just the bald fact that is is not actually a crime now. For that, you accuse me of trolling. I offered my lengthy track record of non-trolling posts as evidence of my character as a serious poster. You then return with a jumble of names of logical fallacies, from some numbered list you seem to have stashed away somewhere. Who's trolling now?)
It's no more theft than 3 card Monte. HFT is just a faster con.
It's no more theft than 3 card Monte. HFT is just a faster con.
I got those dup posts in in under a nanosecond.
No surprise there. The same guys who own the HFT supercomputers to milk their muppets are the same guys who write the legistlation and regulations and hand them to our "representatives" in D.C. to pass - or not pass - just as long as GS maintains its prefered status.
I think this s an excellent decision, regardless of how the law interfaces with the software industry. Federal commerce power is limited. Perhaps you comments are valid, but this is an issue that should be addressed to state law, not federal. The less federal power the better.
I'm with you there!
Surely there are enough other laws on the books (cue Dr. Ferris) to get a conviction on something - theft of Trade Secrets perhaps, or has this string of charges tripped double-jeopardy?
The court may be using this case to spur Congress into clarifying the statutes so this specific activity is illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.