Number one thing I can think of is to figure out a way to prevent HFT algorithms. Put a 1 second timer on and put taxes on those trades, to prevent the whole "my fiber line is .2 ms faster to NY than yours" trading arbitrage. The more fundamental issue of corruption at every level though is still not addressed by this.
"You have some good points but you are edging on to alien abduction conspiracy mode."
I respect all the points you have made except for this one. I very clearly stated things that are fact based, with some speculation and broad-generalization, but to then equate that with "edging on to alien abduction conspiracy mode" is very frustrating to see. I understand the trepidation of even coming close to "conspiracy theory" subjects for fear of being somehow tainted by the crazy, but the history of the world was built on conspiracy, so to ignore the factual and everyday conspiracy that is verifiable under the banner of lumping it in with the crazier stuff is doing your own ability to critically think about a subject a disservice. Again, I understand the reaction, but I think it is one we need to guard against, as it is some strange form of logical fallacy that combines ad hominem and strawman.
To encase my point, did you know that the CIA really pushed the term "conspiracy theory" as a discrediting technique in 67 after outcry grew that the Warren Commission didn't do it's job? (which it didn't..).
"2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories."
"You have some good points but you are edging on to alien abduction conspiracy mode."
I respect all the points you have made except for this one. I very clearly stated things that are fact based, with some speculation and broad-generalization, but to then equate that with "edging on to alien abduction conspiracy mode" is very frustrating to see. I understand the trepidation of even coming close to "conspiracy theory" subjects for fear of being somehow tainted by the crazy, but the history of the world was built on conspiracy, so to ignore the factual and everyday conspiracy that is verifiable under the banner of lumping it in with the crazier stuff is doing your own ability to critically think about a subject a disservice. Again, I understand the reaction, but I think it is one we need to guard against, as it is some strange form of logical fallacy that combines ad hominem and strawman.
To encase my point, did you know that the CIA really pushed the term "conspiracy theory" as a discrediting technique in 67 after outcry grew that the Warren Commission didn't do it's job? (which it didn't..).
"2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CI...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CI...