Hacker News Reader

Comment by samstave | Hacker News Reader

>"We like the idea of letting everyone transact freely, but we are uncomfortable with the "winner take all" implication of that policy."

I don't agree with this fully. Your statement implies that "Freely" means "with complete abandon to any sort of soundly regulated and protected system designed to prevent fraud, corruption, exploitation... " -- Also, acquiescing to the "well the system is fucked by design, why are we upset that they exploit the structure of the system" is a cop-out to the fact that their actions are wrong and need to be fixed.

To quote the magnanimous G. Costanza: "WE ARE LIVING IN A SOCIETY, HERE!!!"

View on HN

But it's not just fraud, corruption, and exploitation. It's probably not even mostly that. It's about being able to just run the numbers a little bit better, aggregated over millions of repeat transactions.

That's part of the narrative I'm talking about. We tell ourselves: "It's only because of fraud, corruption, and exploitation" that all this money is flowing from main street to wall street.

It's not just running the numbers better. It's having the numbers to run. That's what information asymmetry is all about. One side of the transaction has the data at the most detailed level and have the technological sophistication to be able to operate on that larger quantity of data in a reasonable time frame. The guys on the other side don't even have the data, only aggregated summaries. Even if they figured out how to get the details it requires significantly more technical resources in terms of hardware, software and engineering to be able to compete.

My point is that it's not just that the big guys have better programs...they have better programs and better data and it's frequently the data that makes the difference.

I think you're misinterpreting my comment.

The statement was that "We like the idea of letting everyone transact freely, but we are uncomfortable with the "winner take all" implication of that policy"

But this is not true. We are not uncomfortable with free transactions resulting in winning - we are uncomfortable with "free" being the state of the system whereby the winner is able to do so because there is no oversight over the WAY in which these winnings are achieved.

namely, that one side of the transaction is exploiting their position of data/information superiority for their benefit and as a result, those who are under the delusion that they have a chance of making out well in the transaction suffer the reality of being the victim of having less data/information/sophistication.

We all want "FREE" transactions - but we want them on a level playing field.

THe fact is that there is no level playing field when it comes to the pinnacle of the monetary system.

The system is DESIGNED to not be in anyone's favor but wall street.

Further, they have worked very very hard at tremendous expense to ensure that the regulatory system, bodies and laws are all skewed in their favor!

Ignorance has so badly corrupted the minds of the world that even the understanding of the term Free is lost on most.

There can be an hour long rant on how exactly unfree every one truly is due to debt-slavery.

Is having superior information and data not consistent with a level playing field? What about hiring up a significant portion of all the top college graduates and having them work around the clock to give you every possible advantage? Is that consistent with a level playing field?

My point is that there are a lot of things short of fraud that we consider "meritocracy" (and having superior information and superior analysis usually falls into that category), but those things systematically stack transactions in favor of the parties that can afford to buy them. Even if you have zero fraud, zero lobbying, etc, you'd still see wealth flowing to Wall Street from Main Street.

I think we are in perpendicular agreement. I agree with your statement. I also believe that the system as it is currently regulated, implemented and used is based on a system that is actively working to protect itself and its advantage and that the actions taken by wall street to get/maintain/hide the data/advantage they have is what is illegal.

I am not saying that using or having a better position of data or information is wrong or illegal. I am saying that how they got there in the first place, and what they have done to ensure its perpetuity for them is what is illegal/wrong/exploitative and abused.

The worst criminals of the bunch are those in supposed positions of regulatory authority that are really there to protect the interests of big money.

This includes GS employees setup as Obama's economic advisory.

(Note: often people make the mistake of saying "well do you expect him not to hire/appoint people with intimate knowledge of how the financial system works?" -- No, I expect him to hire/appoint people with express knowledge of how the system works and how it is exploited and abused so that they can identify and go after criminal fraudulent activity.

When you hire/appoint those BENEFITING from the actions of the industry - it protects the criminal/exploitative activity!)

Because for Wall Street to succeed, Main Street must fail? Why would Main Street transact with them at all if that were the case?

> Why would Main Street transact with them at all if that were the case?

Because we force them to, through 401k's and the like.

What specific law are you referring to that forces Main Street to invest in 401Ks?

The tax code, mainly (and remember attempts to privatize social security?). Not overt force, no, but intended to skew behavior certainly.

401k doesn't force you into wall street. You can buy govt securities or money market, unless your employer is awful.

In theory, Wall Street should accrue value in two forms: as a tax for the liquidity they provide, and as compensation for the risk they take. It used to be that the investment banks were mainly middle-men, but increasingly they've also become essentially government-backed hedge funds. Unfortunately, they can use their position as middlemen to extra value from Main Street. Finance should not be like 10% of your GDP, unless you're Switzerland or another country that "exports" banking services. It doesn't produce value itself, it's just a tax on the rest of your economy necessary to ensure the availability of capital.

POI: the liquidity fee is the same as the risk compensation. They take the risk of the price moving before they can unload the stock.

That doesn't seem to be the case, at least in a lot of the major recent crises like mortgage refinancing. It wasn't that they were running the numbers better; it was that they were misrepresenting the underlying quality of the securities in question. Look at the MBIA lawsuit where it was clear that folks on the selling side knew that the securities were garbage. Same with Enron.

There's a popular saying on Wall Street: YBGIBG. It means "you'll be gone, I'll be gone"... by the time the scam gets exposed, the folks who perpetuated will have received their bonuses and be long gone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com