> I consider my job not only not to be bad, but GOOD for society.
Really now? Wow. Wasn't expecting that. Tell me, again, how exactly is it good for society?
> My job helps making a level field and removes the need of extra people working in trying to scalp away from market fluctuations.
This smells like a rationalization of HFT. Is that what you do? It is quite popular among the HN folks after all.
> I consider my job to be good in the sense that the alternative to be worse.
That's quite an achievement in the art of Rationalization. In a similar vein, I guess shooting someone in the head is better than torturing them to death.
> Quite like a free market I consider it to be good, because it's the MUCH better alternative to a CAPTIVE market.
Umm.. so your job's goodness is comparable to a free market being good by way of being better than a captive one? Care to elaborate?
> Because that's in fact the only alternative.
A captive market is the only alternative to a free market.. or your job? What's the point here?
> The freest market is not the least nor the most regulated, it's the best regulated.
This seems to make sense, but how is it related to what you do?
> You've very conveniently cherry-picked my criticism about them.
Well, your only criticism of those sites was that they're "rather juvenile", which didn't leave much room for cherry-picking. But of course, "cherry-picking" is a common accusation on HN.
> That's the way they're redacted, the public they cater to the most and very likely the personality of the main contributors.
Redacted how?
> But you're missing the point that it's not ONLY about that.
Actually, I didn't miss that detail in what you said. I just wanted to see if you'd "go there". You didn't disappoint.
You see, a job not being only about money is just as blindingly obvious as the fact that not every single goddamn black guy is a better dancer than your average white guy.
> This point is related to the post because I'd actually take this job over most other jobs taking a significant pay cut.
Glad you cleared that up, I was starting to wonder. But what else would you say, especially at this point? Of course you're going to make that claim, because for you, this has been all about rationalizing what you do right from the start.
> My sister is a doctor, I think my job is more positive for society than even that, it affects way more people.
That's quite an audacious load of bullshit right there.
Yes, your job has far-reaching potential consequences, including - but not limited to - collapsing economies and countries along with them, causing massive loss of wealth for us little folks, social unrest, chaos on the streets, people killing each other for food, power-grabs by totalitarian forces, and so on.
Before you start foaming at the mouth, note the word "potential" there.
Really now? Wow. Wasn't expecting that. Tell me, again, how exactly is it good for society?
> My job helps making a level field and removes the need of extra people working in trying to scalp away from market fluctuations.
This smells like a rationalization of HFT. Is that what you do? It is quite popular among the HN folks after all.
> I consider my job to be good in the sense that the alternative to be worse.
That's quite an achievement in the art of Rationalization. In a similar vein, I guess shooting someone in the head is better than torturing them to death.
> Quite like a free market I consider it to be good, because it's the MUCH better alternative to a CAPTIVE market.
Umm.. so your job's goodness is comparable to a free market being good by way of being better than a captive one? Care to elaborate?
> Because that's in fact the only alternative.
A captive market is the only alternative to a free market.. or your job? What's the point here?
> The freest market is not the least nor the most regulated, it's the best regulated.
This seems to make sense, but how is it related to what you do?
> You've very conveniently cherry-picked my criticism about them.
Well, your only criticism of those sites was that they're "rather juvenile", which didn't leave much room for cherry-picking. But of course, "cherry-picking" is a common accusation on HN.
> That's the way they're redacted, the public they cater to the most and very likely the personality of the main contributors.
Redacted how?
> But you're missing the point that it's not ONLY about that.
Actually, I didn't miss that detail in what you said. I just wanted to see if you'd "go there". You didn't disappoint.
You see, a job not being only about money is just as blindingly obvious as the fact that not every single goddamn black guy is a better dancer than your average white guy.
> This point is related to the post because I'd actually take this job over most other jobs taking a significant pay cut.
Glad you cleared that up, I was starting to wonder. But what else would you say, especially at this point? Of course you're going to make that claim, because for you, this has been all about rationalizing what you do right from the start.
> My sister is a doctor, I think my job is more positive for society than even that, it affects way more people.
That's quite an audacious load of bullshit right there.
Yes, your job has far-reaching potential consequences, including - but not limited to - collapsing economies and countries along with them, causing massive loss of wealth for us little folks, social unrest, chaos on the streets, people killing each other for food, power-grabs by totalitarian forces, and so on.
Before you start foaming at the mouth, note the word "potential" there.
Here's a first-hand account of the consequences of hyperinflation in Argentina: http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-surviva...
Hyperinflation is certainly one of the potential consequences for what the financial industry is doing, and you are helping them.