Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week

concealment sends this excerpt from CNBC: "A single mysterious computer program that placed orders — and then subsequently canceled them — made up 4 percent of all quote traffic in the U.S. stock market last week, according to the top tracker of high-frequency trading activity. The motive of the algorithm is still unclear. The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. ET Friday."

35 of 617 comments (clear)

  1. Truth or dare... by ccguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear the production IT department of a big trader had been drinking (something about the bonuses, don't know if they were celebrating or trying to forget) and started to play truth or dare.

    The game was interrupted when the boss arrived (what he called "first thing in the morning").

    1. Re:Truth or dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try the article. This kind of gaming the system _does_ happen all the time. It's just this event seemed particularly large.

    2. Re:Truth or dare... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try the article. This kind of gaming the system _does_ happen all the time. It's just this event seemed particularly large.

      Eh, no one reads the TFA -- I come here for the comments :)

      Of all the stock market defenders hyping the vital need for liquidity in the market, not one had ever mentioned that a significant fraction of that liquidity could be phantom trades.

      Does the article mention why the "fake" traders aren't fined and permanently banned from stock market? Stock market is not an anonymous place.

    3. Re:Truth or dare... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The article indicates that there were no trades at all, just large numbers of orders.

      I misspoke. Not "orders", but "activity". Still, this activity is clearly visible and accessible to players thus potentially gaming the market.

      Why would anyone on the market need to know the "activity" before it actually happens? Are those the HFT traders watching the transactions before they occur, hoping to skim some profit off the top? Could it be that a new kind of market predator had evolved and the newcomers are now trying to game the HFT traders?

    4. Re:Truth or dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is allowed. They operate within the rules.

      Considering it's basically a license to print money, nobody is particularly concerned with "fixing" the problem. That's why you see all this astroturfing bullshit about how good HFT is -- it is all they really have to delay public opinion turning against them.

    5. Re:Truth or dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It may not affect the prices directly. However it might affect the prices indirectly, by influencing the decision making of others (especially other algorithms).

    6. Re:Truth or dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, HFTs certainly skim off the top of genuine traders and investors. If they were just transferring money from each other, the practice would never have become so pervasive.

      They do it by spending millions on computers, programmers, interconnects, and physical proximity and connectivity to exchanges. This gives them a fundamental and practically (for a small time player) unbeatable advantage over other users of the system, which is utterly against the spirit of a free market.

      What they are doing is consuming the service to the detriment of other users, and extracting a tax with their unfair advantage over other users, while contributing exactly nothing back.

    7. Re:Truth or dare... by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      HFTs certainly skim off the top of genuine traders and investors

      Yes, those are the other players in the market that I mentioned. "Players" is the people involved, not just HFTs.

      What they are doing is consuming the service to the detriment of other users, and extracting a tax with their unfair advantage over other users, while contributing exactly nothing back.

      Which is why I said the other players (the non-HT traders) have an incentive to end that behavior, which is why it doesn't make sense that "nobody is particularly concerned with "fixing" the problem". They should be.

    8. Re:Truth or dare... by aurizon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is market judo, push the opponent, measure the response, feint again, and again until you assess the defense - in this case the various times constants of responses, how the market falls and rises with these assorted feints (false trades) and then you attack, force an arbitrage gap and execute two counter trades and grab the arbitrage difference - repeat many many times.

      I think this is what is going on with this high speed trading

    9. Re:Truth or dare... by AVee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can bid ridiculously low prices, or ask ridiculously high prices, and no trades will be made, but this won't affect the stock prices. Stock prices are set based on trades that do occur. It's like selling a house - some bozo can offer you half what it's worth, but the net effect on the house price statistics for your area is precisely zero.

      With automated trading systems this probably isn't entirely true anymore, since automated systems are likely take these bids into account when making their trading decisions. You could use this to trick your competitors into buying or selling a certain stock.

    10. Re:Truth or dare... by choprboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      So it is possible to create a large volume of "trades" without actually ever buying or selling anything? I am surprised that isn't gamed on regular basis

      It is and this is the basis of high frequency trading... though on Wallstreet they call it "providing liquidity". It works like this:

      Alice wants to sell 1000 shares of Acme Corp. She places an sell order for 1000 shares at $25.00 on the exchange, but she also places a minimum bid of $23.90 on the sell order. This minimum bid what Alice is willing to accept should someone counter-offer but is suppose to be secret, only the sell price will be published.

      Bob is looking for 1000 shares of Acme Corp. He wants to place it in his portfolio for long-term growth, but he thinks it is currently worth less. Bob places a general buy order at $24.40 on the exchange. For the sake of simplicity we will say that is his only price, though he too could have a maximum bid he is will to pay.

      So there is a sell order at $25.00 and a buy order at $24.40 pending on the exchange, nothing trades. Now Bob could make a buy offer to Alice at $24.40 and the trade would go thru, or Alice could make a sell offer to Bob at a lower price and follow thru. In a perfect world the exchange would figure it out and match the orders... but that doesn't happen without further action on the part of Alice or Bob.

      Eve is a high frequency trader... Actually, Eve is a high frequency trading program at MegaTraders LLC. and has spotted that there are buy and sell orders for Acme Corp on the exchange. Eve places a bid at $24.99 for Alice's share, the exchange accepts, and then Eve immediately cancels the bid order. Eve has just learned that Alice is will to sell for less than the sell order posted. Eve then continues placing bids on Alice's stock, $24.98, $24.97, $24.96, etc., each time immediately canceling the buy when the exchange accepts the bid. Eve gets down to $23.89, at which point the exchange does not accept the bid for Alice's stock. Eve has just learned that Alice is willing to sell for as little as $23.90 and all of this has happened within 10s of milliseconds.

      Remember all those articles on Slashdot about high frequency firm X laying their own fiber directly to the exchange to cut milliseconds off transit time? Having custom L2 firmware on their switches and no firewalls on their trading links to cut milliseconds off transit time? This is why they do it, so they can submit hundreds/thousands of buy/sell/cancel orders on a single stock within a fraction of a second to learn pricing differences between orders that otherwise should be secret.

      So Eve now knows that Alice is will to sell for $23.90 and would perform the same procedure against Bob to discover his highest buy price. Once found Eve can now see a price difference advantages to herself. Eve buys the 1000 shares from Alice at $23.90 and then immediately sells the shares to Bob at $24.40, pocketing the $500 difference. On Wallstreet they call this "providing liquidity", anywhere else this would be considered insider trading and illegal. Multiple all this by several hundred firms with special inside access to the market place, each running their own competing Eve programs, and you quickly realize how the market can go into turmoil within seconds....

    11. Re:Truth or dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally what if you hold positions in a "flash crash" or "melt up" depending on what your position is and if you have any cash on hand it might be an INCREDIBLE opportunity for you. You might have a shot out buying or selling at 1000 times the margin you otherwise hoped to get.

      And then they roll back the day's trading, because we can't have little old you profiting from the cascading algorithmic panic of big money.

    12. Re:Truth or dare... by dargaud · · Score: 5, Insightful
      A few questions:
      • - Why are you allowed to cancel orders ? At an auction you owe the money once you've raised your hand.
      • - Why isn't there a fine on traders who happen to cancel more than X% of their orders ? X being in the order of 1.
      • - Why aren't transactions or even 'reservations' (which is what a canceled order looks like to me) taxed ?
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    13. Re:Truth or dare... by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
      These are not mutually exclusive effects. One could argue that the "wealth" extracted from the stock market by algorithmic trading/casino capitalism is effectively draining real wealth from the small investors (suckers). The end point of this process is a investment environment where the insiders have so much capital that the illusion of a functioning investment environment collapses. Anyone else attempting to invest will only have access to the equivalent of penny stocks.

      If you look at the investment career of the plutocratic candidate Romney you can see how far this transformation has already gone. A lot of his $250 Billion (or more) was acquired (i.e. stolen) from Bane investors. The deals were always structured so that Bain insiders would come out ahead, no matter what the outcome: win, loose or draw.

      What is called capitalism in the West is close to the way the Mafia used to work after WWII. You joint a crew associated with an insider and you get a license to steal. You pay for the privilege of stealing by kicking money to the bosses. In the current setup the insiders support outfits like the American Enterprise Institute and the Chamber of Commerce which influence government to legalize theft.

      A current example: Wallmart is in huge scandal right now with bribery in Mexico.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/04/26/walmarts-mexican-bribery-scandal-will-sink-it-like-the-icerberg-sank-the-titanic/

      It came to light that after paying the bribes WalMart’s leadership team did about everything it could to cover them up. Including spending millions on lobbying efforts to hopefully change the laws before anyone was caught, and possibly prosecuted. The goal was to keep the stores open, and open more. If that meant a little bribing went on, then it was best to not let people know. And instead of saying what WalMart did was wrong, change the rules so it doesn’t look like it was wrong.

      The US Chamber of Commerce was the vehicle for their attempt to change the law to make bribery legal.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wal-mart-took-part-in-lobbying-campaign-to-amend-anti-bribery-law/2012/04/24/gIQAyZcdfT_story.html

      The push to revisit how federal authorities enforce the statute has been centered at a little-known but well-funded arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where a top executive of Wal-Mart has sat on the board of directors for nearly a decade.

      The effort has intensified in the past two years, drawing on the backing of several large companies and trade groups such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, where one of Wal-Mart’s top executives serves as a director. It also has involved high-powered lobbyists, including former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey.

      There is no evidence that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico. (Emphasis added.)

      If you believe that last line you also should believe in the tooth fairy.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    14. Re:Truth or dare... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anyone is having trouble following the details of the above, or more likely having trouble believing what they are reading, just remember this:

      The stock exchange is based on rules. If anyone is making money through exploitation or gaming of the existing rules, then they will spend that money in an effort to ensure that the rules remain in their favour. When history is written, the story of electronic stock exchanges in the 2000s will be one of patronage, lobbying, connections and bribery on a wide scale. Retail investors will be the marks who lose out.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    15. Re:Truth or dare... by choprboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      A few questions:


      • - Why are you allowed to cancel orders ? At an auction you owe the money once you've raised your hand.
        - Why isn't there a fine on traders who happen to cancel more than X% of their orders ? X being in the order of 1.
        - Why aren't transactions or even 'reservations' (which is what a canceled order looks like to me) taxed ?

      Just to be clear... The above is a grossly oversimplified example of HFT. Thanks to the new world of online trading, an order isn;t really processed until both sides have confirmed the order. In the old days with a hundred guys in a trading pit, someone offering to buy at $150,000/share would obviously be wrong. Mistyping the same in an electronic order that autocompleted could have disastrous consequences, so there has to be a way to cancel a request. Why aren;t there fines or taxes? Well ask NASDAQ/etc.

      In the real world the above is happening on trades with a difference of a fraction of a cent. In many cases it may be that Bob has a buy order at $25.01 and Alice has a sell order at $25.00. Eve has millisecond timing and can simply enter the orders faster than any human trader could possibly react. Eve is also taking in every market fluctuation and stock move the virtual instant it happens... meaning a well built Eve can anticipate the bounces in a stock price based on buys/sells and just announced news, before a human could recognize that news. But at the end of the trading day, Eve has no position in the market. Eve has only served to suck money out of the market by acting as an (unwanted) intermediary.

    16. Re:Truth or dare... by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Informative

      And although slight, it might slow down the system. Maybe 4% will not result in a noticable change, but could it slow the system down enough to give someone an advantage? (..) Yeah I know, that's pure speculation.

      That's exactly what I read in some article might be the point:

      “My guess is that the algo was testing the market, as high-frequency frequently does,” says Jon Najarian, co-founder of TradeMonster.com. “As soon as they add bandwidth, the HFT crowd sees how quickly they can top out to create latency.” (Read More: Unclear What Caused Kraft Spike: Nanex Founder.)

      Translation: The ultimate goal of many of these programs is to gum up the system so it slows down the quote feed to others and allows the computer traders (with their co-located servers at the exchanges) to gain a money-making arbitrage opportunity.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    17. Re:Truth or dare... by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've had illegal manipulation of a stock I was shorting result in a margin call against my account. There was no opportunity to "wait a day" for the mess to subside; part of my position was closed at the manipulated price by my broker. I've also had a stop loss order triggered by someone pushing the price around with that as its intended effect, a few seconds before the close proceeding a positive earnings announcement.

      The idea that an individual investor will survive a crash long enough for the volatility to end without damage is a very optimistic one. Position entry isn't the problem; yes, you use a limit orders, etc. The problems are on the exit side. Forced closing before the return to normal conditions and making safety stop loss orders impossible to use that just two of the many ways individual investors can get hammered by temporary price manipulation.

    18. Re:Truth or dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what I understand, such practices are completely in the spirit of the free market. These traders have created and exploited an advantage for profit. There is not altruistic component of capitalism that demands "contributing something back."

      Following your logic, a mugger is good example of a free market capitalist - he exploits the advantage he has over other people (big posture, a knife in his pocket) for profit, whilst contributing nothing back. You're right in saying that capitalism is not about altruism, but it's also not about exploiting the weaknesses of the system, and certainly isn't about using that advantage to curtail the efforts of others.

    19. Re:Truth or dare... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the "bad old days," I could track an investment on a day to day basis without much worry of what has happened in the last 5 minutes. In other words, if I bought a mutual fund, it wouldn't go up, or down, by much more than a fraction of a percent between the time I placed the order and when it executed.

      Since the advent of widespread HFT, even well diversified funds can fluctuate 5% per day, get unlucky on entry and exit and you've lost 2 years of typical gains - similarly, get lucky on entry and exit and you've got an extra 10% in your pocket. We've already got Las Vegas if we want to gamble, I'm looking for a little more predictability out of Wall Street, instead we are getting less and less.

    20. Re:Truth or dare... by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main problem, not with high frequency trading per se, but with all the fake bids that are put into the system and then cancelled, is that it prevents proper price discovery in the market, because you can't tell who the real willing buyers and willing sellers are from all the noise.

    21. Re:Truth or dare... by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The bidding on the stock I was trading was moved up to benefit a company executive who was selling a block that day. Good luck getting the SEC to cancel trades due to simple forms of insider manipulation on that small of a scale. They're massively understaffed for that, and ineffective at most jobs they claim to be doing. Eventually the stock price went to 0 because this sort of crap put the company out of business, so in the end it all worked out fine.

      I don't think executing a simple short transaction on a single stock that seems headed down is beyond the "typical retail investor". It's not like I had some crazy naked short or an options position here. Knowing how to use a stop loss order is not exactly trading rocket science either. This is all "Trading for Dummies" territory.

    22. Re:Truth or dare... by organgtool · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sounds awesome! As a solitary private investor, how can I leverage HFT to make money?

    23. Re:Truth or dare... by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've read about 12 studies now [...] they all conclude the HFT is overall beneficial to the market as a whole.

      That's funny. I've read studies which say otherwise, and I can even cite them.

      How High Frequency Trading Harms Even Long Term Investors
      - Investors are warned against using market orders and stops because HFT can and will suddenly withdraw their quotes. This alone should tell you something is rotten at the core.
      - Some universities, such as Georgetown, can no longer afford to buy TAQ market data for their professors or students to analyze. This will lead to less academic oversight, guidance and involvement, as well as students who are less prepared for careers on Wall Street. Data has become prohibitively expensive because of all the excessive quotes generated by HFT.
      - Quote spreads are much wider and less stable during market open, which causes many micro flash crashes in individual stocks.
      - Misleading price quotes interferes with price discovery, one of the core functions of a stock exchange.
      - Mis-allocation of resources, both human and technological.
      - If left unchecked by regulators, traders who want to process quotes, will soon need super-computers, 10 gigabit connections and their own engineering staff to have the same basic level of trading information they needed in 2006.
      - HFT generated so much Quote Spam in the flash crash, that it took 5 months for the SEC to assemble the data.
      - During the flash crash, excessive quotes from HFTs overloaded quote data feeds, causing severe delays: stock quotes from some exchanges were behind over 30 seconds during the height of the flash crash.

      But I'm sure these are all good things, and help keep the markets healthy. I must just misunderstand how awesome they are.

    24. Re:Truth or dare... by Rufty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How does the HFT magically know what you were willing to pay? It's really hard to have a reasoned debate when people are attributing ridiculous feats to HFT.

      Imagine two genuine traders, GT1 and GT2. There's an item that GT1 wants to sell and GT2 wants to buy. GT1 is prepared to sell for as little as 21.10, and GT2 is prepared to pay up to 21.20. Past trades have been at 21.17, so GT2 offers 21.15, and the sale occurs. Now add a high frequency trader, HFT.

      • [GT1] Tells exchange, sell for as little as 21.10
      • [HFT] Places buy order with exchange for 21.35
      • [Exchange] Tells HFT "Sold!"
      • [HFT] Tells exchange: "HaHa - only kidding. Cancel it."
      • [HFT] Places buy order with exchange for 21.34
      • [Exchange] Tells HFT "Sold!"
      • [HFT] Tells exchange: "HaHa - only kidding. Cancel it."
      • ...
      • [HFT] Places buy order with exchange for 21.09
      • [Exchange] Tells HFT "NoGo!"
      • [HFT] Now knows that the minimum that GT1 will trade for is 21:10

      Rinse and repeat to find the maximum that GT2 is prepared to pay. Buy from GT1 at their minimum price, and/or sell to GT2 at their maximum, pocket the difference. GT1 has made less than they would have without high frequency trading, and GT2 has spent more that they would have. And GT1 and GT2 are probably your pension funds.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
  2. my bad lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    forgot to exit my Do While loop :) had to ctrl+al+del

  3. Market manipulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A single mysterious computer program that placed orders — and then subsequently canceled them
    The algorithm never executed a single trade

    No regulator should accept this.

    1. Re:Market manipulation by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kinda puts a spotlight on who is in bed with whom doesn't it?

  4. Inflation and lack of competition by udachny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real problem is that there is too much fake money that people do not personally feel attached to, because it's created by the main counterfeiters of the world - the central banks, and because starting a competing exchange is nearly impossible.

    How about this for a story:

    In April, motivated by what I consider pure maliciousness, the SEC initiated a âoecease and desistâ administrative proceeding it deemed âoenecessary for the protection of investors and in the public interestâ against Egan-Jones Ratings Co., a privately owned, 20-person firm based in Haverford, Pennsylvania, and against its principal owner, Sean Egan.

    Do you know what the alleged crimes are?

    Here:

    Now, incredibly, Egan-Jones is the sole rater that the SEC has decided to attack. The trouble for the firm started on July 16, 2011, when Egan-Jones downgraded the U.S.â(TM)s sovereign debt by one notch, to AA+ from AAA. Egan-Jones cited âoethe relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending.â Two days later, the SECâ(TM)s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations contacted the firm seeking information about its rating decision. (The next month, S&P also downgraded the U.S.â(TM)s sovereign debt, but neither Moodyâ(TM)s nor Fitch did.)

    Then, on Oct. 12, Egan-Jones received a call from the SEC notifying the firm of a Wells Notice, an indication that it was being investigated. On April 5 of this year, Egan-Jones again downgraded the U.S. sovereign debt, to AA from AA+. On April 19, leaks started emanating from the SEC that it had voted to start an âoeadministrative law proceedingâ against the firm. And on April 24, the SEC filed its complaint.

    The crime is that this one agency is not paid by the sellers of the bonds but instead it's paid by the buyers of the bonds, and the buyers have an incentive to have debt rated properly, so that they know their risk.

    Of-course AFAIC US bonds are junk.

    So you think SEC is interested in really dealing with HFT and whatever you think is market manipulation?

    Think again, the only thing it is interested in is protecting the fake rating of the sovereign debt, so that the US gov't can keep piling it on.

  5. Unclear? Really? by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The motive of the algorithm is still unclear."

    Oh what a load of bullshit.

    It's obviously an experiment in painting the tape. Make bids, cancel them. Walk stocks up and down with the bid price. Head-fake other HFT corps that track bid prices in their algorithms.

    It went badly because it was detected. It needs tweaking to be not so obvious next time. And yes, there will be a next time.

    It's a casino now. It's been a casino for a while, and if you're not part of the house, you're the mark.

    --
    BMO

  6. And THIS is the heart of our financial system... by Foske · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys, think of it. Our stock exchange, i.e. your pension or if you are unlucky also your mortgage is depending on this kind of software these days... And this is not the first time this year that stock trading software is in the news. This has nothing to do anymore with owning a share of an organization in the hope the organization will make a profit and pay you dividend. This is total craziness.

  7. Felix Salmon on high-frequency trading -BBC Radio by Forget4it · · Score: 5, Informative

    Felix Salmon on high-frequency trading and its part in the current financial crisis.
    Listen to this 13 min BBC programme/essay at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n1thw available for the next 12 months

    --
    Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
  8. Re:Slashdot headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so its basically a d.o.s?

  9. Liquidity by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it's advantageous to sell, you sell and make money, there's your liquidity

    That is most definitely not liquidity. Just because you want to sell something doesn't mean there is a buyer. Or it might mean there is a buyer but they want a big premium to do the deal. Liquidity is a measure of the ease with which buyers and sellers can find each other and agree to a price. Our recent financial crisis was in large part a crisis of liquidity. Big banks needed to be able to borrow money and everyone was afraid of lending to someone who might be insolvent so there was literally nowhere to borrow from. It's not just an all or nothing proposition either. If a stock is thinly traded, the spreads are going to be huge and it will be really expensive to buy that stock. If it is difficult to find sellers it likely will be difficult to find future buyers as well. The more trading that occurs in a stock, the narrower the bid/ask spreads because it is easier (and less expensive) for buyers and sellers to find each other. More trading = more liquitity = lower transaction costs.

  10. Re:What are you smoking? Must be good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Put down the crack pipe, Limbaugh. This "printing press" inflationista crap is getting old.

    The source of funds to pay off (currently zero-interest) debt is growth. There will be no growth until there is demand. We don't have a supply-side problem - businesses are flush with cash and manufacturing capacity, but no-one is buying anything, because they are still suffering from a massive deleveraging hangover. Businesses don't need some kind of mythical 'confidence' - they need customers.

    The problem isn't government borrowing today, it's government borrowing yesterday. Today, the government should be borrowing on a massive scale to stimulate growth. If you want to scare people about debt and deficits, then you should be really pissed at the people who went on a massive government borrowing spree WHEN IT WASN'T NECESSARY to pay for shit like unnecessary wars and tax cuts for rich people - not at the people who are trying to fix the damage.

    When the economy is depressed, and interests rates are zero, the government should borrow like crazy. When the economy is growing, and interest rates start to go up, government borrowing (and spending) should go down. Instead we do the opposite, and the crazies come out with ex-post-facto idiot economic theories about how our current problems are the result of current policy, as if the number one world economy turns on a government dime. Wake the fuck up.

    Much of the rest of the world is doing better than the US these days? Wow. We certainly have our problems, and we're not number one at absolutely everything, but what the hell are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.