Run continuously, non-delayed, but only sweep the order book at a random time every [1,2) seconds. Run for something like our current extended market hours.
Everyone gets the benefit of fast-enough execution and strong liquidity.
Crazy high-frequency gamesmanship goes away. Smart quantitative plays are still possible.
The best known (at least in the tech circles - in good part thanks to HN and Matt Levine) is probably IEX. The exchange guarantees that every participant is behind the exact same time delay. And they do that by having a sufficiently long spool of optic fibre between the exchange "broadcast switch" and the market maker computers.
Simple and effective. Relies only on laws of physics to create the delay.
There are also exchanges that run with "frequent batch auction" principles.[0]
Note that his half-jokey proposal for a total of 30 minutes of trading time a day is at this point a running theme. If my memory serves me correctly, he started talking about this phenomenon in the pre-plague years.
Even once per second seems like overkill. That interval would still largely just facilitate the weaponization of exceedingly low information latency.
30 seconds seems reasonable, 1 minute better, and 5 minutes still better. In all honesty even going as long as 30 minutes should still facilitate all legitimate purposes.
Honestly what would happen if the stock market didn't exist. It seems like these days the price of stock is so disconnected from lived reality that genuinely confused if it would be all that catastrophic
Well we’d go back to an era where private capital owns the world. The public would not be able to participate or benefit from the ownership of companies and share in the prosperity.
I should of used the term "equity" instead of "capital". I meant that the worlds largest companies would no longer be able to be owned by public equity and would only be available to those in the exclusive club of private equity.
I mean the average person already barely has any participation at all, and certainly doesn't benefit from it when their money gets dumped down the toilet because of some widespread financial scams and grifts that repeatedly happen over and over again.
And how many of those people are actively making decisions about what companies they are investing in instead of blindly putting money into a black box 401k account because they are financially punished for not doing so?
Not by choice. Stocks are pushed onto Americans (as well as Europeans, and most people in the West) via their pension funds, advanced savings accounts, and sometimes even their salaries (via options). If normal savings accounts in their local credit union would offer adequate interest rates (and if paying in stocks was outlawed by their unions) stock ownership would plummet. I would be surprised if it would even exceed 2%.
That feels like a disadvantage by design. In a different (and more fair) economy, investing in government bonds or a savings account in your local credit union would give you a better deal then leaving your money with a global hedge fund conglomerate which in turn invests your money into all sorts of unethical companies, including oil and weapons companies.
Your government is way more democratic then your hedge fund. And I would wager your are in a massive minority (perhaps among my hypothetical < 2% who would own stocks by choice in my hypothetical economy) if you desire your unused money to be spent by Canadian billionaires to further enrich them selves, instead of your government investing in infrastructure, health care, education, etc. or your local credit union lending it to somebody in your community buying their first house, or opening up a new business which you are likely to shop at.
It's not disconnected from reality. You just don't understand it.
If the stock market didn't exist you would have less opportunities to invest in well priced companies and people would be manipulated in investing in opaque, often ridden with accounting shenanigans things like private equity.
The more companies are public and subject to price discovery done by sophisticated players the better it is for uninformed players like normal investors but also less sophisticated informed players like pension funds.
Like which one?
2008 crisis was caused by reckless lending by banks as a result of silly regulation (government guaranteeing loans), implicit promise of bailouts and you could argue corruption.
What does it have to do with the stock market?
It's a nice dismissing soundbite but you're just missing the broader point and real issues coming with people's money being invested in non public entities.
Besides, just because some problems also happen with solution A doesn't mean they wouldn't be worse with solution B. You are not really making a point just dismissing the idea of a public market without understanding the value of it.
that makes no sense. companies need capital, that's why there is a stock market. dividends are paid from past earnings, never capital (earnings are only a %age of the value of the capital) and not from higher expectations of the future.
And even that seems kind of generous to me. I see absolutely zero value in stock trading continuously for any length of time. Businesses don't make purchasing or investment decisions in that time span, nothing of significant value can even be created or sold or shipped in those time spans.
> Democracy won’t be restored until we increase the number of political parties in this country
Parliamentary systems with many parties run into a different kind of dysfunction. Belgium didn't have a government for like two years relatively recently because they couldn't form a big enough coalition. In a democracy, there is no magic bullet that does not involve the quality of the demos.
What is your idea of democracy that needs to be restored in this country?
More power to voters; make their votes count. Encourage run-off voting, etc. We don’t need to turn the US into a parliamentary government. Those are different matters. Things like ranked-choice voting, proportional representation, multi-member districts, electoral college reforms. We don’t necessarily need a large number of parties…
At this point, the political parties are incentivized to suppress votes and/or redistrict things to make voting favorable for their party. Negative partisanship becomes a too-effective political strategy. There are other issues such as focusing on swing state politics (rather than representing their constitutents) and primary capture of ideologically committed voters (reinforcing and/or encouraging extremism).
I agree, there is no magic bullet... but a two-party system has a tendency to devolve into a winner-takes-all mentality. It also increases polarity in every country where a two-party system has ever existed (primarily US, UK, Canada).
What happens when the two party no longer represents the majority of Americans and American interests?
> Every progressive I know would be thrilled to stop with the culture war BS. However, MAGA refuses to just let people live their lives the way they want.
Are you using some nonstandard definition of "progressive" and "MAGA", or do you genuinely have the belief that the left wing is closer to the center majority of this country in "culture war" matters than the right wing?
I don't believe that the "center majority" matters. People have a right to live their lives even if the "center majority" disagrees. At one point the "center majority" thought that slavery was alright, that didn't make them right.
Spoken like a true culture warrior! It's not a matter of who is "closer", rather it's a matter of which party leans into politicizing the policing of cultural choices in the first place.
Generally speaking, it's better to not assume that everyone with political views opposing yours has them out of racism, or whatever other personal defects you might imagine.
In reality, the nonwhite vote share for Trump went up for almost every group in 2024 vs. 2016. "White fragility" was probably not their top concern.
Much of what people say has always been strange about politics. It doesn't seem to be rooted in fact so much as in wanting to dunk on someone.
I remember when Roe v Wade was being overthrown and people would talk about how this was how "Men try to control Women's bodies" or something like that. The reality around that time was that the gender differences were a few percentage points[0]. Since then a gender gap has widened[1] but notably among Republicans. Voters for the Democratic party barely differ on abortion attitudes based on gender.
i never said everyone with opposing political views has them out of racism, i'm saying it just plays well. Way too many of the white voting share went to the eating cats and dog racism that we saw play out. Cuz it works. That is america.
I think this is the correct dichotomy for the difference in cultures and better explains the Guesser vs Asker thing. High context cultures (Asia, South America, Mediterranean) tend to be Guessers because they already have the context and that context is the more important part of their communication. In low context cultures (Northern European, Russia, US) communication is more direct and words are more important than non-verbal cues.
> the white supremacist views and actions that were perpetuated, emboldened, and exported by the reconstructionist south (not that the north was innocent, far from it, but the majority of the burden inarguably on the south)
Well, the south was the only place where there were any appreciable amounts of nonwhite people. "White supremacy" was just "the way things are" in the north, because they pretty much only had white people.
In 1900, decades after the end of the Civil War, the south was about one-third black; every other region (midwest, northeast, west) were less than 2% black.
No it's not fraud, it's a growth hack. And it's not lying, it's advertising, it's not spam, it's a cold email, it's not patent trolling, it's IP protection.
Fraud is good, these companies need their revenue so they can create an all powerful AGI. If you don't allow them to scam they'll lose against the chinese
Do you believe that the law should treat people differently based on the color of their skin? Do you believe my father-in-law, an Eastern European immigrant who fled communism, should be given disadvantages due to his being white, even though neither he nor his ancestors had anything to do with slavery in this country? Do you believe the likes of Claudine Gay, who hails from a wealthy family and grew up in the very picture of privilege, should be given advantages due to her being black?
Do you believe in punishing the son for the sins of the father? Do you believe in punishing someone who just happens to look like the sinners of the past? Do you believe that nonwhite people's ancestors did not commit the same atrocities at some point or another in history as white people's ancestors?
I'm not white, but I find ideas you espouse to be just simple racism, and nowhere close to "justice".
Your father-in-law, an Eastern European immigrant who fled communism, benefits from ongoing racialized distributions of privilege, power, and money.
So, yes, I do believe he is "cutting in line," and should have the humility to stand in solidarity with, rather than standing on the necks of, marginalized communities. Your father-in-law is not climbing out of anywhere so deep a hole as the Black and Hispanic populations on this continent. Not even close.
Even the Gulag Archipelago pales in comparison to the centuries of slavery, genocide, rape, and disenfranchisement we have visited on these peoples in order to accrue the wealth that your father-in-law now has the privilege to work for.
You're still talking promoting group A at the cost of group B for what group C did to group D, people in groups A and B having not much to do with C and D. Even considering descendants of original group D, the benefits are overwhelmingly reaped by those affected by whatever extant systemic injustice remains the least.
You are currently standing on the shoulders of minorities to rise yourself above others.
If you are indeed honest about it, you can personally take a step back and promote anyone you want. Demanding it from others is just self-righteous and your intentions are questionable.
That Eastern European immigrant is a result of centuries of feudal slavery. The serfdom of population east of Oder meant lack of freedom of movement, mandatory free work for the lord and the clergy, great poverty and no education. Lord could decide about life and death of their serfs and killing of serf by a different noble was just resolved as part of the business with a fine/repayment. Serfs were just another commodity in lords property, the further east, the worse serfs were exploited.
Despite XIX century reforms dismissing serfdom in some regions, generational poverty of peasants kept them in serfdom like conditions up until end of WW2. And even after WW2 you could end in Ukraine with forced exports of food resulting in genocidal famine.
That Eastern European immigrant has family history of half a millennium or more in slave like conditions.
reply