« The limits of empire | Main | Health care reform, House version »

November 08, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To be fair, the gentleman in Baltimore (I was at the table) claimed that banning computers was the only way to regulate specifically high frequency trading, not modern financial markets in every possible sense. That's not to say that he was right or wrong, but it's a different claim.

IIRC, it was the spouse of the gentleman in question, but the point still holds. Mea culpa! I believe that your point doesn't alter my argument, but I would, wouldn't I? It seems to me that that governmental authorities could limit high-frequency trading through measures far short of banning computers ... but nonetheless in excess of what the person in question considered possible in terms of intrusiveness and draconianess.

That's a better way of making my point --- when someone argues that regulation is impossible, they are almost certainly wrong. When someone argues that regulation would need to be stronger than is politically feasible in order to be effective, then they are making a serious argument.

Nonetheless, I misrepresented the argument and therefore weakened my point, for which I deserve and accept reproach.

Good pizza, though. And Amma and I, we're pizza snobs, so that's saying something.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)