Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic Inequality

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 580 posts

Re: Economic Inequality

#521

Post by mrchicity »

abalashov wrote: post #499
murbard2 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's absolutely natural. That's like saying 50 to 70 of Internet traffic went through an ISP.

I suppose. I mean, I get the difference between quality and quantity, but if we're talking about the gravity of the problem, the knowledge that 50-70% of trades are HFT/automated tells us something about the nature of our securities, commodities, etc. markets. Doesn't it?

But why does that astound you or strike you as a problem? Look at any mature market and you'll find middlemen buffering supply and demand. Imagine:

50-70% of auto transactions are between dealers who don't even drive their cars and only own them for weeks!

50-70% of bread transactions are between distributors and supermarkets who don't even eat bread and want to sell it in days or even hours!

Re: Economic Inequality

#522

Post by [deleted] »

abalashov wrote: post #499
murbard2 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's absolutely natural. That's like saying 50 to 70 of Internet traffic went through an ISP.

I suppose. I mean, I get the difference between quality and quantity, but if we're talking about the gravity of the problem, the knowledge that 50-70% of trades are HFT/automated tells us something about the nature of our securities, commodities, etc. markets. Doesn't it?

[deleted]

Re: Economic Inequality

#523

Post by [deleted] »

abalashov wrote: post #499
murbard2 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's absolutely natural. That's like saying 50 to 70 of Internet traffic went through an ISP.

I suppose. I mean, I get the difference between quality and quantity, but if we're talking about the gravity of the problem, the knowledge that 50-70% of trades are HFT/automated tells us something about the nature of our securities, commodities, etc. markets. Doesn't it?

[deleted]

Re: Economic Inequality

#524

Post by wildmusings »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #461
icebraining wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The majority of drivers are classified as independent contractors, are not protected by core employment and labor laws, and often work under arduous and unsafe conditions." Yeap, Uber is awful. Oh, wait, this is actually a report from 2007 describing the Taxi industry: http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Unregulated_Work... There's a lot of propaganda about how Uber is reducing the welfare of drivers, but it…

We know that Uber is awful and managed by sociopaths in absolute terms. It does not need comparison to any kind of old taxi industry ideals. Plethora of reports we had for the last few years show this clearly. And old "taxi mafia" was at least subject to some improvements - each taxi company was local and had to listen to authorities, which in turn could be influenced by citizens. Uber? They don't give a flying fuck…

I prefer the accountability of the market, over taxi cartel boards.

Re: Economic Inequality

#525

Post by mrchicity »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #390
natrius wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retail traders don't have liquidity needs on a sub-second basis. They'd all be better off with exchanges that used batch auctions. HFT is a tax on our economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-lewis-high-frequency-...

No, retail traders don't. However if I go through my electronic broker, it's then trading on the 'real market' on my behalf, and the extra liquidity is much appreciated. And trading today is cheaper than ever before. I actually started trading on the TSX-V market, which has super-low liquidity and no HFT players (not even sure if there are market makers for most of the stocks). It's pretty much my idea of what hell i…

According to IIROC (Canada's SEC), HFTs are active on TSX-V, but not in all stocks or to the same extent that they trade the TSX blue chips. I would imagine they'd stick with the highest volume TSX-V stocks. The ones that aren't liquid have low opportunity and risks that are impossible to model/hedge (penny stocks can easily go to 0 from an accounting scandal or jump 1000% if a wildcat strikes gold or oil).

"Figure 9 shows the HFT participation as a fraction of all transactions and value. Compared to the main market, HFT activity in TSXV stocks is lower, with only 20% of transactions and less than 10% of value involving an HFT on the passive side (aggressive volume is negligible). As Panel C indicates, however, they submit about 55% of all orders, and they are thus noticeable in these securities. Panel D highlights the share of HFT and other traders’ orders relative to best prices. HFTs generally submit more than half of the orders that are submitted at the best price or that are improving the best price." [1]

1: http://docs.iiroc.ca/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=048AE40...

Re: Economic Inequality

#526

Post by song »

icebraining wrote: post #509
TeMPOraL wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that Uber is awful and managed by sociopaths in absolute terms. It does not need comparison to any kind of old taxi industry ideals. Plethora of reports we had for the last few years show this clearly. And old "taxi mafia" was at least subject to some improvements - each taxi company was local and had to listen to authorities, which in turn could be influenced by citizens. Uber? They don't give a flying fuck…

I don't like Uber either; I just dislike dishonest propaganda, even if targeted at a bad actor. > They don't give a flying fuck about the law, and they're too big for any single city to pressure them into anything. I think that's a little overblown. Uber has been forced to leave many cities (Paris, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Madrid, etc) and parts of cities (e.g. Calgary Airport). Uber may be willing to bend the law, but th…

Uber is still available in Paris. Only UberPop has stopped. They still have UberX and UberBlack which are legal according to French law since they rely on licensed drivers.

Re: Economic Inequality

#527

Post by TeMPOraL »

wildmusings wrote: post #524
TeMPOraL wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that Uber is awful and managed by sociopaths in absolute terms. It does not need comparison to any kind of old taxi industry ideals. Plethora of reports we had for the last few years show this clearly. And old "taxi mafia" was at least subject to some improvements - each taxi company was local and had to listen to authorities, which in turn could be influenced by citizens. Uber? They don't give a flying fuck…

I prefer the accountability of the market, over taxi cartel boards.

Fine, but it doesn't work when one side plays by different rules than everyone else.

Re: Economic Inequality

#528

Post by jackarmstrong »

jacobolus wrote: post #8

Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”. The most extreme proposals I’ve seen in America are ones like, “institute an unconditional basic income as an alternative to means-tested welfare programs,” or “allow every citizen/resident into a single-payer healthcare system,” or “go back to the tax structure of the 195…

jacobolus is exactly right.

Re: Economic Inequality

#529

Post by wildmusings »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #527
wildmusings wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer the accountability of the market, over taxi cartel boards.

Fine, but it doesn't work when one side plays by different rules than everyone else.

I agree. Abolish the medallion systems and other industry protectionist laws. Then cabs will just become a federated competitor to Uber and prices will fall to the same level, if not lower. I guarantee that the taxi lobby will not approve of that. They want government protection to revive their dead monopoly. There's nothing morally wrong with that; they're just looking out for their own interests. It's on the rest of us to see that for what it is.

Re: Economic Inequality

#530

Post by wildmusings »

jessaustin wrote: post #393
wildmusings wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, Friedman, and I think Hayek as well, supported a universal basic income. Friedman called it a negative income tax, but its the same premise. I think a lot of laissez-faire capitalists would get behind that idea, if it was coupled by the permanent abolition of all other welfare programs and most labor regulations. It's definitely an idea I can get behind. It would require some constitutional amendment f…

One reason why many such characters would support basic income is that it would ostensibly remove the provision of benefits from the overview of the bureaucracy. That's the same reason that many others would not support it. I'm very tempted to throw in with the former, except that I worry about the follow-on effects of basic income. Would a basic income just be a windfall for landlords, as they all increased rents by…

I think a gradual phase-in of the basic income, and a corresponding phase-out of existing programs, would avoid the pains of a sudden change.
Post reply on HN