While this is true, there are generally two large parties that garner 60-80% of the seats, and these tend to be centrist parties with the same sort of minor differences that we see in the USA between Republican and Democrat. One drawback to the parliamentary system that I've seen is that fringe parties can have a disproportionate influence since neither centrist party has enough votes to form a majority on its own and needs to bribe them to join a coalition. At least, this is what I saw in Israel, and bribe is precisely the correct word. At one point it got so sickening that the two major parties formed a coalition instead.
The math is way beyond me of course, it sounds like it would be amazing to understand it. Kudos to the authors. And it is great to think there is a mathematical proof of this. But we already knew the conclusion was true in general by the fact that anything exists at all.
I can appreciate their sentiment, but as one poster said, are they going to stop using electricity? I think instead of saying 'divest from fossil fuels' which is a showy, noisy position that doesn't really achieve anything, they should take a more positive approach and urge the university to invest in alternatives, or even better urge the university to deploy solar technologies or something to be less dependent on fossil fuels for power.
"Libertarians believe in absolute liberty for everyone" is not correct. They don't believe in using violent coercion to violate the rights of others, aka the "non aggression principle". They do believe in all kinds of restrictions on liberty, such as private property rights, torts, fraud (as in against it), contract rights, self defense, etc. It is perfectly acceptable for a Libertarian to say "this cannot be called a marriage" What the OP didn't say was 'They should have a law against it' or 'people should be forced at gunpoint to acknowledge it'. Those latter two would violate the NAP. Nothing he said was a violation of Libertarian beliefs, now perhaps that is what he meant I can't speak to that.
Sure, the current poles of 'no ads' and 'fully personalized targeted ads' are not compatible. That's why we have negotiations. And there is plenty of middle ground. It is just a question of how targeted we are willing to allow to support the free services we all love to use online. For example, an electronics site might feature ads targeted to electronics hobbyists. Is that so bad? Somewhat targeted at least. And it doesn't require any tracking. I know this isn't exactly the sort of thing we are talking about, it is the old way advertising worked.
Well the local ISP WAN will be fine once Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV, etc. all live on it locally. In fact, do we really need an "Internet" at all once that is in place?
Nothing is stolen. The second party ends up with the same or more than they had before the whole thing started. The business may or may not be unethical, that doesn't make it theft any more than it makes it terrorism.
Yes, that is exactly what the article says. The OP was claiming that orders could be anticipated *on the same exchange they are observed entering* which is not true, as the article itself says when they got their expected fill on BATS.
While your first part is a roughly accurate approximation of what the article describes, your conclusions are incorrect in two respects. One, it isn't illegal to take publicly available information and trade on it. It isn't any different than if you read on cnbc.com that some CEO has cancer and you rush to your PC to sell the stock (driving the price down). I am in the shower when the story breaks so I miss my chance to sell at the same price as you. None of this is illegal. Your example of the two brokers is invalid since it is not the same situation. In that case, yes it is illegal since the brokers are working for the same firm and the buying broker is acting on proprietary information. THAT is illegal. And it has nothing to do with what the article is talking about. The distinction between public information and proprietary information makes the difference.
You are also wrong in that neither example is stealing. Draw whatever ethical lines you wish, but even in your worst case example there is no theft. You aren't entitled to buy anything at whatever price you wish, unless you have a contract. Someone depriving you of an opportunity to buy something at some price may or may not be unethical, but it isn't theft. If there is one copy of a book left in the store, and someone else buys it first, thus "forcing" you to buy a more expensive hardcopy, is that theft?
No. TFA illustrated that *somebody* (or more than one) would observe activity in one exchange, then anticipate the same activity on other exchanges. The OP was claiming that the broker would observe their customer orders entering a darkpool, then trade against their own customers. THAT is what is illegal, and not what the TFA addresses.
So from whom is something being stolen, the one who offers to buy at $100 and receives $100? Or the one who offers to sell at $99.99 and receives $99.99? It seems by your definition all retailers are stealing from their customers.
Fair enough. There's nothing here to establish in any way that pension funds or any other investor is getting anything less than what they might have. Any competent broker has a myriad of ways to avoid the issues discussed in the article.
Any competent institutional broker has a wide variety of ways to defend its customers against that, all you need is a little time for their algorithms to work. If you don't have time, well, you pay the price just like any motivated seller.
I agree that would be an interesting story. Trading against your own customers in the way you describe is illegal, which of course does not mean it cannot happen. or there might be a way to legally achieve the same effect.
Slashdot Mirror
This is dead on, I had the same experience.
How about the founding of the Ming Dynasty?
While this is true, there are generally two large parties that garner 60-80% of the seats, and these tend to be centrist parties with the same sort of minor differences that we see in the USA between Republican and Democrat. One drawback to the parliamentary system that I've seen is that fringe parties can have a disproportionate influence since neither centrist party has enough votes to form a majority on its own and needs to bribe them to join a coalition. At least, this is what I saw in Israel, and bribe is precisely the correct word. At one point it got so sickening that the two major parties formed a coalition instead.
As I recall, they got rid of the Danes by assimilating them. Eventually.
The math is way beyond me of course, it sounds like it would be amazing to understand it. Kudos to the authors. And it is great to think there is a mathematical proof of this. But we already knew the conclusion was true in general by the fact that anything exists at all.
I can appreciate their sentiment, but as one poster said, are they going to stop using electricity? I think instead of saying 'divest from fossil fuels' which is a showy, noisy position that doesn't really achieve anything, they should take a more positive approach and urge the university to invest in alternatives, or even better urge the university to deploy solar technologies or something to be less dependent on fossil fuels for power.
Grilling and barbecuing are not the same thing
"Libertarians believe in absolute liberty for everyone" is not correct. They don't believe in using violent coercion to violate the rights of others, aka the "non aggression principle". They do believe in all kinds of restrictions on liberty, such as private property rights, torts, fraud (as in against it), contract rights, self defense, etc. It is perfectly acceptable for a Libertarian to say "this cannot be called a marriage" What the OP didn't say was 'They should have a law against it' or 'people should be forced at gunpoint to acknowledge it'. Those latter two would violate the NAP. Nothing he said was a violation of Libertarian beliefs, now perhaps that is what he meant I can't speak to that.
What else has gone in in the last year that makes you say this?
That's funny to me, since I usually refer to the manned mission ideas of space exploration as "monkeys in a can"
Sure, the current poles of 'no ads' and 'fully personalized targeted ads' are not compatible. That's why we have negotiations. And there is plenty of middle ground. It is just a question of how targeted we are willing to allow to support the free services we all love to use online. For example, an electronics site might feature ads targeted to electronics hobbyists. Is that so bad? Somewhat targeted at least. And it doesn't require any tracking. I know this isn't exactly the sort of thing we are talking about, it is the old way advertising worked.
It takes a real psychopath to want to do to other people what they would never want done to them.
Why are you picking on psychopaths? This sounds like pretty much everybody.
Well the local ISP WAN will be fine once Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV, etc. all live on it locally. In fact, do we really need an "Internet" at all once that is in place?
Me neither! I think all this whining is very childish. So sorry champ that the world asked you to use your brain and try something new...
Nothing is stolen. The second party ends up with the same or more than they had before the whole thing started. The business may or may not be unethical, that doesn't make it theft any more than it makes it terrorism.
Yes, that is exactly what the article says. The OP was claiming that orders could be anticipated *on the same exchange they are observed entering* which is not true, as the article itself says when they got their expected fill on BATS.
While your first part is a roughly accurate approximation of what the article describes, your conclusions are incorrect in two respects. One, it isn't illegal to take publicly available information and trade on it. It isn't any different than if you read on cnbc.com that some CEO has cancer and you rush to your PC to sell the stock (driving the price down). I am in the shower when the story breaks so I miss my chance to sell at the same price as you. None of this is illegal. Your example of the two brokers is invalid since it is not the same situation. In that case, yes it is illegal since the brokers are working for the same firm and the buying broker is acting on proprietary information. THAT is illegal. And it has nothing to do with what the article is talking about. The distinction between public information and proprietary information makes the difference.
You are also wrong in that neither example is stealing. Draw whatever ethical lines you wish, but even in your worst case example there is no theft. You aren't entitled to buy anything at whatever price you wish, unless you have a contract. Someone depriving you of an opportunity to buy something at some price may or may not be unethical, but it isn't theft. If there is one copy of a book left in the store, and someone else buys it first, thus "forcing" you to buy a more expensive hardcopy, is that theft?
I heard an official on the radio state is was 'only' a couple hundred dollars more on the price of a car. F*** you, poor people!
No. TFA illustrated that *somebody* (or more than one) would observe activity in one exchange, then anticipate the same activity on other exchanges. The OP was claiming that the broker would observe their customer orders entering a darkpool, then trade against their own customers. THAT is what is illegal, and not what the TFA addresses.
So sorry to see this is AC, it should be modded up. +1 informative
So from whom is something being stolen, the one who offers to buy at $100 and receives $100? Or the one who offers to sell at $99.99 and receives $99.99? It seems by your definition all retailers are stealing from their customers.
Do you have any evidence that they are doing it anyway?
Fair enough. There's nothing here to establish in any way that pension funds or any other investor is getting anything less than what they might have. Any competent broker has a myriad of ways to avoid the issues discussed in the article.
Any competent institutional broker has a wide variety of ways to defend its customers against that, all you need is a little time for their algorithms to work. If you don't have time, well, you pay the price just like any motivated seller.
I agree that would be an interesting story. Trading against your own customers in the way you describe is illegal, which of course does not mean it cannot happen. or there might be a way to legally achieve the same effect.