"trickle down theory" seems obviously correct to me. Like, if a person has lots of money, it's stupid to sit on it - they invest it, found businesses, hire people, buy things - all of which are putting money back into lower tiers of the economy to me. Am I missing something big?
-
Most wealth is not in HFT firms. This is nonsense. Most of Gates's money is in Microsoft. Most of Buffet's money is in Berkshire Hathaway. Most of Carlos Slim's money is in his Telecom. Most of Bezos's money is in Amazon.
Will is right about HFT, but it's a very small component of the financial markets relying on algorithms that crunch miniscule margins out of tiny market inefficiencies — too small to be taken advantantage of except at massive scale. It's zero-sum; too slow, you die.
-
-
Using HFT as an argument against finance broadly is like pointing to the barnacles to dismiss the whale. It's certainly example of rent-seeking in finance. It's not an answer to your question, by any stretch
-
To an extent, HFT, day traders etc that seem zero-sum create a positive externality by making markets liquid and enabling others to trade more efficiently, including long-term investors.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.