This column started out being titled “Is Goldman Sachs Evil?” until I realized the issue is far more broad. It began with a blog post by my old boss Jim Casella, who now runs Asset International, a financial publisher. Jim concludes after a review of some recent and very negative press that Goldman isn’t evil, per se, just cocky. But by comparing the investment bank to sports teams and players I think Jim makes a grave error. Goldman Sachs isn’t evil, just stupid. And that stupidity comes in the form of their witless abuse of technology.
Jim’s sports analogies are misplaced because while sporting events must inevitably have winners and losers economies don’t. TRADING has winners and losers but Goldman is an INVESTMENT bank (worse still, they are now a bank holding company) pretending to be on the side of economic growth. Trading relies on finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the system while investing grows the economy. Trading is a parasite on investing. I’m not saying to ban it, I AM saying that technology has enabled outfits like Goldman to be such efficient parasites that they threaten the survival of their hosts.
This is fine if we look at it as a process of evolution. Maybe what we are going through lately is natural selection that will over time improve our culture and society. But that’s not the way it is being pursued by Goldman and others: they aren’t envisioning some future after they’ve killed their host, nor do their techniques allow the host to recover before being bitten again. I’ve talked with these guys and they are clueless about the implications of their work. The deepest they’ll go is to allow that China will likely be the next economic superpower so they’ll just move their operations to Beijing or Shanghai.
That doesn’t do much for Ma and Pa back on the farm.
Economies need a little slack to function smoothly but these companies are removing all of it. All they need to be is a little less greedy, but their greed apparently knows no bounds.
Their techniques usually come down to the application of technology. Faster computers and bigger pipes allow the relentless application of small advantages that eventually suck profit out of the market. The answer is bigger and bigger guns wielded by bigger and bigger players, which is fine unless you aren’t a big player, which pretty much describes the rest of us.
This process builds financial bubbles until they pop then it is left to the despised government to fix things. But what if government runs out of options? Then there is economic revolution. That’s what happened in the former Soviet Union in 1989 — a process we in the west cheered at the time.
But what if it happened to us?
We can’t imagine that. Our economic policy doesn’t imagine it, nor does our foreign policy, because superpowers don’t acknowledge weakness.
But we ARE weak.
It all comes back to technology. Remember the work of Black and Scholes that underlay the staggering growth of derivative securities was based on thermodynamics. We use principles from one area in another to good effect, but what makes an efficient heat exchanger can make a deadly security.
There’s a sore failing here, I believe, in the application of ethics to technology.
Ethics? What does ethics have to do with Boyle’s Law?
Maybe nothing, maybe plenty, but the overall problem is that those who claim to understand ethics aren’t so good at the technology parts, and vice versa. We saw that with Enron, which was technology gaming the market, and we evidently haven’t learned much since.
Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be Evil.” I thought that was silly when I heard it first. But now I think it is the height of wisdom. Because the techiest of techie companies probably knows better than most the power of tweaking systems to death.
It’s possible. We CAN kill our own culture trying to preserve or defend it. Understanding that and helping to make change as painless as possible comes down to the best efforts of those few people who really understand the complexity of our society — many of whom are readers of this column.
Everything is interconnected in this era where technology drives society yet few really understand technology. If someone can take down Twitter because of a petty grudge then ANY information system is vulnerable. Sometime neglect is all it takes.
And neglect is all around us.
Just two things:
1. Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
2. Character (of a person or a nation) determines fate.
You must not have any religious leanings. Scripture is quite clear that there is good and evil. You can choose to ignore it, but ignoring something doesn’t make it any less of a fact. Denial is society’s way of thumbing its nose at G-d.
Leave it to the morally self-righteous to misinterpret the Scripture and believe in their own superiority, judge and condemn others, and ignore damages to G-d’s nature and fellow humans all for selfish and material gain. Materialism and their egos are the gods they really worship. They are the ones in denial.
I realize my own hasty remark sounds judgmental as well. What I meant to say is that there is no moral compass in the market and trading, especially during a boom. I’m sure plenty heads of banks and corporations attend church regularly, and lots of folks responsible for the credit collapse say they are religious. The accumulation of wealth and pursuit of materialistic success, especially immediate reward, is the basis of our free market, at least so far.
The scriptures also advise not to judge lest yee be judged. Yes, there is good and bad, but it all depends on how you choose to look at it. Optimists see a green light. Pessimists see a red light. The wise person just observes the traffic as he/she is color blind. I am quite religious, btw, but probably not when judged by your subjective standard.
No, the scriptures say judge not lest ye be judged _by the same standards_. In other words, walk the walk or STFU.
It always seems to be that those who wrap themselves in the western God turn out to be social Darwinists, and very often with inherited wealth. They always ignore the teachings which admonish all to support the society in an equitable way. They are always greedy and possessive. I have no doubt that Christ would have issues with Ayn Rand; the rabid religionists cleave to her foamings. It’s also notable that wars have been based in religion more often than not. Current day not excepted.
LOL. You are hilarious.
You lefties are so morally vain that it hurts. You b-itch about religion …. kill off the christian gods then 3 milliseconds later you re-invent a god based on your stupid as can be chicken little / sky is falling religion/scam called global warming. Then forthwith go and try to cram it up all of our collective arsees.
I’m atheist but I have to say the left seems ALOT more pushy about trying to change my life without my consent than any christian ever has. If they embrace social darwinism maybe its a good thing? If it is then I say all hail social darwinism….because I just can not stand the idea of being told what / when to do by you idiotic lefties who could not think your way out of a wet paper bag. But yet feel the compulsion to tell me how to live.
LOL… even funnier
Will those “I never question anything with logic and believe in the absolute truth of The Bible” religious types please refrain from spoiling a good discussion. I’m sure you have much better things to do like home-schooling someone so they won’t get contaminated by any ideas …
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Bob, great article. It makes me think about the science fiction scenario of humanity being crushed by machines smarter than man. However, back here in reality, your post essentially makes the case that the technological singularity may not be necessary for humans to effectively destroy civilization with their powerful yet unintelligent machines.
To paraphrase Archimedes, technology is a lever, if fast enough it can move the world.
Like all levers it is neutral, the hand that uses it is good or evil.
Good governance can protect us from the evil hands as they will most certainly seek out all possible levers for ill use.
Unfortunately you don’t know an honest hand from a dishonest one, until its pulled that lever.
It seems to me our American system is founded more on response than prevention. We let people be as free as possible, but if they screw up then we come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Or, in the case of Goldman Sachs, we ought to.
Do not hold your breath waiting for the gov to come down on Goldman Sachs.
O.B.A.M.A. and company are OWNED by Goldman Sachs. Heck they’re going to be the market maker in “carbon credits” ( a.k.a. scam-o-rific papel dispensations )
It’s corporate fascism with O.B.A.M.A. playing the role of the foppish Mussolini.
Bush is the fascist. Read the definition.
Technology doesn’t kill people. People kill people. 🙂
Species that survive, do so in part because they have attributes that benefit them in the conditions under which they live. The other part is just luck of course. Our species is still focused on living for today. We still think as if this were 100,000 years ago and what food we gathered decided whether we went to bed with food in our bellies that night or not.
The underlying problem we have as a species, is that we have become so powerful that the effects that result from wielding that power are often long term ones yet we don’t think long term. Our power and our wisdom are getting out of balance. And balance is a fundamental property of the universe in which we live.
In your example, the power is technology and the knowledge of how to use it to exploit opportunities that add no value to anyone except the person doing the exploiting. The lack of wisdom is doing so without consideration for the long term effects and often, the unintended consequences that come with it.
The gap is growing exponentially!
OK Bob, what happened to listening to these? I used to like that. Can we go back to “Bob’s Sexy Voice” please? Actually, video would be even better – but I guess that might be asking too much.
Even without the sexy voice, this is a very good article. In broad terms people are too interested in the “technical trade” rather than the “fundamentals”, I’ve long thought this. What’s needed is longer attention spans. Probably we need to introduce stocks that you must hold for a fixed period – maybe six months. Getting anyone to agree will be a nightmare, we’ve gotten addicted to the “fast turnover”, but then we can concentrate on the fundamentals. I blame Dan Bricklin.
I double that. On the go, its easier to get your viewpoint on my iPhone podcast, not that I don’t mind checking in from time to time.
I don’t know what’s happened with the podcasts. I’ve been recording them as usual. I’ll go back and check on this….
I’d think a tax of ten cents per trade would put a halt to all this churning, and make the government a mint too.
Amen, this would encourage investment and not the quarter to quarter
Alex Birch
A tax of ten cents per trade? What a great idea! It would appease even Jim Cramer who fears “friction” in the markets. A measly ten cents! Only someone trading 400 million shares a minute would be affected.
I’ll see your ten cents and raise you 34 cents, to equal 44 cents, today’s spot price for a first class postage stamp. Let the nanosecond traders mail shares (10 million at a pop) through the snail mail.
That might stabilize the market a lot. First, by slowing down the blitzkrieg trading, and second, by driving the speed freaks out of a market where our retirement is at risk.
Just like your favorite old Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode, when we let machines fight our wars, or otherwise “Serve Man” the consequences are rarely good.
good start.
The tax you and others describe is called a Tobin tax.
A low, very low tax on all transactions.
Too low to be worth avoiding, but no doubt the rich will, on lack of principle.
Returning the stock market to an investing process in value producing companies will go a long way to stabilising currencies.
Close. The problem is that, excepting the very rare (in terms of shares traded) public offering, share trading: 1) provides no funds to the companies, deserving or not and 2) is merely a zero-sum casino game engaged by voyeurs. The funds do no productive activity.
We first became aware of the real-time manipulation of the market when doing research on futures trading algorithms a couple of years back. I mean, computer trading was common knowledge, but once we really drilled down into the nuts and bolts of the market, we could see that the market was being manipulated in the millisecond level. Someone was generating random price spikes, effectively preventing the small traders like us from making anything on program trading. At first it seemed impossible, that someone was placing trades of millions of shares and then canceling them before they executed; but subsequent reports have supported our observations. Not that knowing that makes it any easier to make a profitable trade, or even a good entry.
Just because you *can* make a buck somehow or other, doesn’t necessarily mean that you *should*. The maxim “Bad money drives out good money” applies to people as well. It seems like all the good, interesting people have left the business world, leaving only rabid drones intent on profit at any cost—even the corruption of the whole free market system. The parasite can kill the host, and the writing is on the wall for everyone to see. In fact we are moving our whole operation to Asia next month.
The March issue of New York Magazine had an article by the programmer who wrote the program that allowed for CDOs. It is titled “My Manhatten Project” It is a great read. It is online at http://nymag.com/news/business/55687/?partnerID=73272
Mod parent up
No mod points. What do think this is Slashdot?
You must be new around here.
Did you see the article on how many people from Goldman are in the Obama Administration? Nothing is going to change.
Interesting, how long might it take Wall $treet to drive the Peoples Republic of China to its knees? Not as we’ll care by that time, the U S will be flung into a dark corner like a used prophylactic.
What makes you think the powers-that-be in China are going to allow the robber barons in? The Chinese are doing a good job of protecting their own economy, and have a few controls on foreign ownership.
China is still essentially a dictatorship, they just have new accounting rules so they can do the business of destroying US manufacturing. Call it “capitalism” if you will, I guess, but it serves the rulers there. The multinationals can try “free market” propaganda in China, but between censorship and the authoritarian government, that trick probably won’t work there like it did here. They will likely find themselves (the corps) to be just the tools, and not the masters.
Well I will have to say that I really don’t understand the point or exactly what Goldman should do differently. Are you saying that Goldman shouldn’t exploit inefficiencies in the market? That’s like saying that Ferrari shouldn’t try and make a faster car or that Bristol-Myers shouldn’t find a better way to deliver Plavix so that there are less side-effects . There are arbitrage opportunities (inefficiencies) that Goldman exploits for profit, just like any other successful business should do. This is really nothing more than natural selection (evolution). The lion exploits the weakest gazelle in the herd, so that overtime the gazelle have a stronger species. The market is stronger over the long-run for having inefficiencies eliminated.
Goldman isn’t being smarter. They’re just exploiting (erecting) barriers to entry in a market. That is not efficient. It is explicitly (in the Adam Smith, the real one) inefficient.
“The lion exploits the weakest gazelle in the herd, so that overtime the gazelle have a stronger species.”
The problem isn’t that Goldman is exploiting the weakest gazelle. The problem is that it is slowing the entire herd, giving Goldman the opportunity to pick and choose as it sees fit. A strong herd doesn’t form in a zoo.
A closer analogy would be the use of steroids. They extract greater function from the body but with an often sever long term cost.
This is complete nonsense. “Trading is a parasite on investing”? How? In what way? Can you provide some actual, you know, evidence for this assertion? And why do you think there’s a difference between “trading” and “investing”? What do you think investing is? An investor buys shares in a company, or land or a commodity, or some other asset that he thinks will be worth more in the future than it is now, and someone on the other end sells it. If the investor is correct, then he makes money, if he’s wrong then he loses money. If the investor changes his mind tomorrow, or for that matter, thirty seconds from now, and decides that he should sell the asset he just purchased, he’s somehow gaming the system and taking advantage of someone else? Presumably there is a buyer on the other end of the transaction who’s happy to make the purchase, so what business of it is yours? Seriously, go pick up some economics books. I recommend anything by F.A. Hayek or Thomas Sowell.
I think the way trading is a parasite on investing is when investing is “making capital available for companies to grow” – not simply “investing in shares”. Then “Investing in shares” equals trading (which is how it is, in the stock market context).
So trading is a parasite on investment, because if there were no investments there would be no trading of shares or profit thereof.
And then this article actually makes good sense (to me anyway).
Bob is saying that investing is a longer term ownership of an asset where a human is involved. Trading is this short term thing done on a very short time scale by machine. He making a distinction for the purposes of talking about either. As for economics textbooks, I’m not sure that they offer any magical knowledge – the market may follow certain mathematical rules of thumb but they can’t model the underlying humans who, you could say, have a large influence on the markey, equal parts rationality and irrationality.
Your own analogy actually contains the difference. Investing is done to benefit from precieved value. The very short term trading discussed here is done in such a way to induce a short term differential in price that doesn’t really exist. It creates a discontinuity and then takes advantage if it.
Which brings us to the crux of the article: Technology has outpaced perception with outcomes unforeseen and possibly not on the moral side of the balance sheet.
I’m with Bruce.
I am sick and tired of the “anti-capitalist/pro-government/more regulation” mentality in this country. If the average person could really see how regulation and obscene anti-business laws have ruined our economy more than anything else, we would have a revolt tomorrow.
Laissez faire, people. Laissez faire!
Don’t think of them as “anti-business” regulations. Think of them as “fixed costs, set up as a barrier to entry against new entries into the market”. Who “owns” our Congress-critters, for all practical wants and purposes? I would submit that it is the “Fortune Nx100” to which these lawmakers must bow.
If regulation X has an essentially fixed cost of $100,000 per year to administer, does it hurt a company with $5 billion in sales much? How about a company with $1 million in sales? Many regulations seem to be paperwork chases that take time to set up, but don’t really prevent anything. So who really benefits from such?
Perhaps a better take on a truly free market would be to dissolve all corporations, and make everybody a sole proprietor. Otherwise, a few big organizations win the “Monopoly” game, the rest of us eventually land on “Boardwalk”, and its game over. Or, “we” could just enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Any action suggested, however, assumes that “we the people” actually take back ownership of our government.
Marxism, Marxism. Now, is it Carl or Groucho????????? Either one is better than that Fairy.
@Bruce F. & Blad_Rnr: you question how “trading” is a parasite on investing, and counsel Laissez faire. I read Bob’s commentary to mean that “trading” is using technology to create and then cancel a trade so quickly that you spend no money, but change perceived activity on a company / stock. This is gaming the system NOT finding inefficiencies. Investing is purchasing a stock and then selling it to another entity later. It’s okay if that transaction happens fairly quick (or not, some are arguing) but not so fast as to have not actually happened. Besides, a holding company in this position has the opportunity to actually execute such trades, but individuals (even companies or collectives) don’t necessarily have the privilege of buying and yet not buying as firms directly wired into the exchange.
So the question of evil stands – just because something can be done, should it be done.
And for those b*tching about government oversight (as opposed to letting the “Market” decide) you’re purposely ignoring facts. Oversight is necessary because “tools” aren’t inherently good or evil; we can’t ensure that no harm will come from “things” so we have to collectively try to watch for and avoid problems. The collective tool to accomplish this is government. Which is to say “we the people” have established a (theoretically) non-biased (non-profit seeking) organization that is maintained as unbiased by our collective involvement. Since we aren’t perfect and unbiased, neither is our government. It can still be hijacked by special interests, however well meaning (or not), so it requires the continuous involvement of “the people”.
I agree with you. Along with this removal of regulation, we should eliminate the limited liability system set up by our government, and eliminate corporate personhood. Make all business owners and shareholders fully liable for any losses incurred by the corporation. See how many banks go negative if their owners have their riches at stake.
Bruce, thank you. Bob, this is your first article in many years that did not make any sense to me. I wish there was a sentence somewhere in the article: “Trading is a parasite on investing, BECAUSE …”. This article states many opinions that are not substantiated:
– “[moving to China] doesn’t do much for Ma and Pa back on the farm.”
– “Economies need a little slack to function smoothly” – what does that mean?
– “what makes an efficient heat exchanger can make a deadly security.” ???
– “But we ARE weak.” – not relative to at least 51% of the planet?
– “… Enron, which was technology gaming the market” – Enron’s technology did not game the market successfully; that is why they cooked their books like Madoff.
I think a more appropriate phrase would be “arbitrage is a parasite on the system”. Once the arbitrageurs squeeze out all the marginal profits, what’s left for retailers, manufacturers, transporters, etc?
I’m with you 100% on this one Zoran. I think Bob’s got an interesting article in there somewhere but I’m still scratching round trying to find the premise.
Let me say this TRADING IS GOOD – by and large – people will not make long term investments if they think they’ll never be able to liquidate them. Management will not make decisions that benefit a company if there’s no market showing what people think of their company (and their management). Markets are not prefectly efficient (no, really, wake up and smell the coffee) but they’re the best proxy to an independent valuation of, well almost anything, we’ve got. Trading normally makes markets, and more trading makes them more efficient, which is good, but it is possible to behave in way’s that are decpetive and make a market less efficient. I _think_ Bob’s condemming these practices, but maybe got a bit carried away. Then again maybe he sprinkled a little to much sugar on his cornflakes this morning.
Financial bubbles have been around for much longer than the application of computers to trading has been around.
But now it is bubble after bubble.
Always has been bubble after bubble. Look at 1870 to 1910.
…As many cosmologists believe the origin of the universe to be – cycles of expansion and contraction/collapse and expansion again. Perhaps the invisible hand of nature enforces a pattern no human construct can elude either.
really? 1879 to 1929. Those lazy fairy folks openly lie about what the economy did until the Great Depression. It wasn’t even the worst, only the worst in the memories of those running the country at the time.
Another excellent piece! If I were Steve Jobs, Bob Cringely would be on Apple’s board.
Rather than tax trades, how about requiring traders to own the stock for a minimum of say, 10 seconds?
The Goldman Sachs behavior is essentially a tax on trading. I want to buy some shares, you want to sell some and we pay a premium for the transaction because of Goldman Sachs and their like.
This column is a rambling mess. What are you trying to say here? How is trading necessarily parasitical? Wringing inefficiencies out of the market should be good for everyone in the long term. As recently as the 1980’s, you could engage in arbitrage between the New York and Los Angeles stock exchanges exploiting small price differences. No more, but why was wringing that inefficiency out bad or parasitical?
I guess I just don’t understand your point here.
Bob, could you please elaborate on this? How is trading parasitical, and how is it going to destroy the economy?
Nice piece. Many people depended on that slack. Now it is gone.
Who depended on it? How? Why? What are you talking about?
Traders produce nothing. For a very high wage.
Ding, Ding, Ding. There have (none that I can remember a link for at the moment) been studies and articles which make the case (with which I agree, natch) that profit from financial services, if conducted as a true economic activity (match making savers and borrowers), are infinitesimal. The notion that 40% of corporate profit (that should be easy to find with Google) should be from financial services is obscene. Not to mention destabilizing to an economy. The profits by the likes of GS’s activities are manufactured by the obfuscation *CREATED* by GS and its ilk, not by adding any value of the match making service to savers and borrowers. This is the issue.
I “read the fine article” Bob and your complaint about sports metaphors rings hollow. It was just used to illustrate the attitude of swagger. And there is nothing inherently evil with swagger because sometimes, in order to be brave you need to act brave, in order to be confident you need to act confident. It’s an internal “head game,” that’s all. But of course, Goldman Sach’s swagger went to the extreme of self delusion. But their delusion could have been mitigated with some simple common sense regulation.
Your notion that there should be no losers in the economy is not only naive, it’s ignorant. By definition, freedom includes the freedom to fail. If you try to prevent failure all you end up doing is taking away freedom. You had a stint at PBS but you are obviously ignorant of some fundamental economic principles covered in the “Free to Choose” PBS series by Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman. Your ignorance would not be showing up so instinctively if you understood some of the basic economic principles highlighted in that series.
One fundamental problem causing the credit crunch was the lack of transparency of an institution’s debt obligations and other huge, unregulated financial instruments. This was not a technology failure, it was a regulatory failure, a failure of government. To use a sports analogy, (which you loath so much), the rules were not keeping pace with changes in the game. Just as the NFL tweaks the rules to encourage fair play, we need a few economic rule changes to encourage a level playing field. Because of the lack of transparency on off balance sheet crap and invisible or unintelligible debt obligations like credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, derivatives and unregulated “securitization” in general, the credit worthiness of companies became completely obfuscated. A few simple rule changes could fix that.
Likewise, government intrusion into economic risk taking and decision making exacerbated the problem. By over zealously guaranteeing loans via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc., credit exploded out of control and stupid lending practices became the norm. Institutions could make bad loans, be guaranteed against loss, and further compound the problem with repackaged bad debt where others unwittingly and inevitably suffered the loss. This could easily be fixed with a few economic common sense rule changes.
It was a failure of government, not economics and certainly not technology.
Let freedom reign… within the rule of law and some common sense regulation.
If the technology is beyond perception it is beyond regulation. The regulators couldn’t keep up with the technology.
Agreed, but it’s still a regulatory problem.
At one time derivatives were illegal in the U.S.
All financial instruments should be regulated and if these instruments are so mathematically exotic or so far removed from tangential valuation that the regulators can’t understand them, then those financial instruments should be rejected. Like my Grandpa used to say, “Some people are just too smart for their own good.”
Likewise, “securitizing” mortgages breeds financial insecurity. This would not be a problem if the lender paid the price for making bad loans. Financial instruments (promises on paper) need to be less abstract, more concrete. If our elected legislature does not address fundamental economics and require transparency on Wall Street, then we are doomed to repeat the melt downs.
DW, a failure of regulators BECAUSE they’ve been held back, gamed and manipulated by the Players and well meaning* right leaning Politicians. There are far to many who insist that capitalism should be nearly unregulated; again, let the Market decide, become misinterpreted to mean that everything is cured by businesses seeking profits.
Technology has been facilitating this gaming, and increasing the pace at which those seeking to properly regulate must fight to have a say. Your point is not to lay the blame on technology; I concede.
*I don’t actually believe that most of the right leaning politicians are genuinely well meaning. I defined well meaning as trying to do the most good for the most people. Most are, at best, sophists claiming the tide raises all boats, all the while knowing that only those with good boats actually float and the rest are free to sink in a deeper sea.
Bob’s point about “no losers” is that sports is a zero sum game: for every winner there is a loser. The economy can have more winners than losers due to growth in value resulting from input from labor, input from technological innovation and so on. However when the market is driven by arbitrage trading and speculation, those transactions ARE zero-sum since they represent deviation from the actual economic value of of what’s being traded. Eventually there will be a loser on those. The bubbles and crashes happen when the speculative trades overwhelm the economic trades.
Again, specifically since share trading (modulo public offerings) involves only financial transactions between non-producers, none of the funds end up with producers and none of the funds are used to buy resources or pay labour. There is NO real growth in the real economy from share trading. In fact, funds siphoned off from buying resources and paying labour lead to diminished growth in the real economy. Share trading is only money changing; and we know what Christ did to those guys. (For the spiritualists still engage in the thread.)
You have a Malware program on this page somewhere….
funny seeing you talking of parasites in the system…
just finished reading “daemon” by Daniel Suarez …
https://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/0525951113
quite a fetching read 🙂
Bob’s criticism is entirely warranted and correct. Here is an article that shows one example of the misuse of technology to parasitically and unethically extract profits from the market that is common place today:
Toxic Equity Trading Order Flow on Wall Street
Basically what this says is that large brokers can make money on stocks by simply selling them back and forth to each other, even at the same price. On each transaction, the broker makes $0.05. Do this programmatic-ally millions or even billions of times day and the money will add up. It is corruption and thievery pure and simple.
What you say makes no sense. Who is paying the $0.05 per trade and why?
Its better to read the article (its short). I don’t explain it well. But here is a longish quote that gives the essence of what is happening:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the practice of rebates gives some an advantage over others. How does this compare to the government stealing 1/2 of someone’s income in the form of taxes? I’d rather put up with a flawed rebate system than pay politicians to “oversee” it.
way off-topic there. We can have the tax reform debate some other time.
Note I’m not talking about tax reform, I talking about the expectation that somehow getting the goverment even more involved is going to help matters overall.
Some people on CNBC (and elsewhere) like to anthropomophize the “market” as if it were some self-aware entity, making choices and decisions. Maybe that is true to some extent, but as this millisecond trading becomes more prevalent, the market has the potential to become extremely irrational on small time scales where changes in the market are driven by the numbers and not always by a valuation of the representing companies. In this case there are the “haves” who can millisecond trade, and the “have-nots” who are likely normal folks with retirement accounts who invest. The have-nots are the ones that get taken for a ride. I vote for a trading fee to put a least a little friction into the market.
Either a trading fee or a built in delay would probably do.
Like a speed limit.
Bob is wrong here. The massive trading programs are just addressing market inefficiencies. If the basic markets were more fair, everyone would get better reals, the spread between bid and ask would approach zero and the parasites would die.
The problem is not technology, the answer is technology. More technology provided to more people. Make the markets better.
Then Bob can go find another demon to chase.
Bob’s point is that some inefficiency in the market is required in order to mitigate against bubbles and crashes. The arbitrageurs trade but don’t add value to the economy. People who actually buy stocks to hold in a company add value to the economy because they’re investing in the growth and earnings of that company, not just causing market fluctuations so that they can skim a fraction of a penny per share.
Cringely’s worst column by a long shot. I am not sure whether it is sloppy thinking or sloppy writing. Efficiency is not the source of bubbles, and inefficiency is not the cure. The guys pouring gasoline on the fire may have thought they were improving efficiency, but if it had been true, they would not have needed to be bailed out afterward.
The holder of the common stock should get a flat percentage of the gross revenue until the stock holder has been repaid the face value of the stock.
The stock would be purchased at a discount. The stock would be held without the opportunity to sell until maturity. The time necessary to pay off the face value would determine the rate of return. Sometimes a good return and sometimes not, but the stock holder would always receive the face value of the stock, and therefore not lose any money.
If the company went bankrupt, the common stock holders would get a portion of the remaining assets just like everyone else.
Similar to a treasury auction, but not completely. The reason we have so many problems with not having enough money for healthcare, retirement, etc., is because our standard, bread and butter investments are so pitiful and lose money almost every time.
Bob is correct and the reference to thermodynamics spot on – people think they understand things when devising these strategies but really only at superficial levels and they do not look for the implications, just the near term gains. The maths of phase transitions and the like are being applied very crudely in these financial scenarios without understanding what a market is fundamentally for. They know (nor care) how these strategies will evolve and they do not appropriately factor in inevitable noise and the actions of agents as they will likely behave according to game theory ( TFT, GTFT, Pavlov, Grim Trigger etc.). Furthermore, the requirement for an historical knowledge is not factored in – hence the spectacular and devastating failure of David X Li’s magic formula and the like.
Without co-operation between sentient beings, enlightened regulation and investment that can be used in natural human based time-frames I believe we are doomed to suffer more of this. Read Philip Ball’s Critical Mass – published before the current debacle really unfolded for an excellent exposition of Hobbes vs. Locke among other delights (I can sense where some of the commentators above have been brought up).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Mass-Thing-Leads-Another/dp/0099457865/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250631938&sr=8-1
Thank you Bob. This is the kind of insightful writing that has kept me coming back for all these years! “Please sir, may I have some more?”
“Wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else”. -Aristotle
A decade ago, I was wondering why so many mega-corporations repeatedly paid for 1,000+ seat licenses for Microsoft Office.
Just a few of those corporations could have pooled some pocket change together and paid a dozen earnest young programmers to clone what most employees needed from word processors, spreadsheets and presentation software, skipping the parts primarily of interest to academics, long-form writers and power users. The minority with esoteric needs might still be outfitted with full-fledged Office, but by and large the Microsoft tax in corporate IT budgets would have evaporated.
Fast forward and we now more or less have reached that point with OpenOffice, but Sun had to foot most of the bill itself.
This is also why I don’t understand why Citigroup would pay an oil trader a $100 million annual bonus, or why we keep hearing that compensation at investment banks is so stratospheric.
Now, I understand why these people are rare: you would generally have a certain type of upbringing to even know those jobs were desirable, and you would need to be a 99th+ percentile student to beat out the competition for those jobs. But if trading success involves extreme mastery of a sort of a highly obscured, ever shifting game theory, what use are upbringing and education as the qualifications to play? They seem more relevant to country clubs and professional fraternities.
Rather than throw seven-, eight-, nine-figure compensation at these employees year after year, spend $10 or $20 million to create online fantasy leagues for commodities trading, derivatives, what have you, making them as realistic as possible.
Scores would play and compete their hearts out for no compensation at all. The investment bank hosting the fantasy league could potentially monitor — and decide how to automate acting on — the top competitors and the “wisdom of crowds” in real time. No individual player need be the wiser. Besides, even that oil trader may occasionally need to sleep, but the interwebs never do.
Heck, set aside some more millions on five-figure “scholarships,” and the investment bank could pay top poker players, Scrabble champions, crossword solvers, MMORG masters, Jeopardy winners, eBay stars and other strategy addicts to play the fantasy league as a daily pursuit. Plow the millions you save back into trades, rather than compensating traders.
Yes, I think I’d agree investment banks may be stupid about technology. And maybe even about all those fistfuls of cash they’re flinging at employees.
If you listen to someone like Andrew Horowitz, you’ve had come to this conclusion as well. They have software that they use to manipulate the markets. How are traders any different than those that go to casinos or race tracks? They’re all betting that their “system” is better than someone else’s. There are lots of people who make money doing all three, but most do not. There’s no free lunch. Unfortunately, people like Goldman Sachs appear to have an edge. I have no problem with them making money. What I have a problem with is the government cleaning up their messes. No company is “too big to let fail”. At the very minimum there should be a Congressional investigation into everyone in the government who has ties to Goldman. There are just too many of them.
I believe the Goldman trading system is a vintage 2001 HAL 9000 😉
Justin Fox’s Curious Capitalist piece in Aug. 24th Time “Bernie Madoff’s
Other Legacy”,
https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1916310,00.html
Scott Patterson’s Aug. 27th WSJ article “Meet GETCO, High-Frequency Trade King”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125133123046162191.html
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is Technology Evil? […]
Is technology evil? No. Is it powerful? Yes. Well, there is an old saying about human nature and power.
“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
So, with the power that Goodman Sachs has, are they evil? You’re kidding, right?
As you so deftly pointed out, the scariest part is the cluelessness of GS and their very likely resistance to grasping the true destructive nature of the buttons they’re pushing. Let’s pass this around quickly.
Is there hope for the Gorilla? Only if man steps up in time.
FYI – I a lot of tech people are quite ethical; only they get bound by their not-so-ethical management, who is bound by their even less ethical management (and on up the chain).
And just to be clear, by ‘tech people’ I don’t mean someone with an MBA who knows ‘about’ technology, but someone who is entirely absorbed in technology – both creating and developing technology; not merely writing about it or managing those who do create or develop it – in their every-day livelihood and/or hobby.
My point being – Enron, while it used technology, is more a failure in the ethics of management than the individual techies. The techies probably did their job with very good ethics; but the direction of the company as a whole had bad ethics.
That’s not to say all techies are ethical – that is certainly not the case.
And it is not always the technology that is evil (though sometimes it is) but more typically the application of it that is evil. More often than not, we start with a small thing that even in its application is not even, but slowly move towards uses in small, incremental steps towards a very evil and unethical use of the technology. This is one reason why I personally would like nothing to do with RFID technology – in itself it is not evil; but there is a huge potential to be evil with it; and I’d rather not even give someone (anyone, myself included) the chance to use it in an evil way.
So, as much as I am for technology, I am either equally or even more so opposed to it if for no other reason than to try to bring some semblance of balance for as long as I can.
FYI – I a lot of tech people are quite ethical; only they get bound by their not-so-ethical management, who is bound by their even less ethical management (and on up the chain).
Time for a refresher: if you compromise your core ethics in order to keep your job in a company managed by unethical people, you are no longer ethical. As an ideal that few ever attain, you should value your ethics higher than your life. Otherwise you could end up as a guard at the death camp, or the gulag, or Abu Ghraib.
I didn’t say anything about compromising ethics to keep a job – I very well agree that is unethical.
My point is more that the task that tech did (change setting to ‘a’ from ‘b’) may be ethical, but the sum of the tasks, which an individual tech may not see but management does, may be unethical;
Or alternatively, they do their job fully ethically – what was provided to them was ethical, but only after having been wrapped in a way to make it ethical. That is, someone at some level knew it was unethical and presented it to someone else in such a manner to make it seem ethical. (For example – all the “think of the children” arguments. Sometimes those arguments are right; other times they may seems right but they really aren’t.) However the bureaucracy of a company works, things may be ethical at one level and not at another. The tech may or may not be able to see that happen.
Sadly, people (in general) are twisted enough to try to make things seem like its the best thing to do until the very end. Otherwise we wouldn’t have lawyers willing to represent SCOG like has been happening for the last 6+ years, and more.
Didn’t the una-bomber think technology was evil? Also what happened to bob’s sexy voice option?
Thanks.
RR
Therein lies the rub . . . you’re a wise man Bob. Sometimes winning isn’t life affirming. I doubt Bill Gates or Steve Jobs would understand . . . or maybe they would, but couldn’t do anything about it. After all, a scorpion has got to do what a scorpion has got to do . . .
I am also a former employee of Jim Casella, though a bit more indirectly. (my boss reported to him)
Maybe GS isn’t evil but they are definitely greedy, almost shameless, even by Wall Street standards, in these tough financial times.
The NPR podcast Planet Money recently had a good show about GS. They interviewed a GS spokesman and noted that GS repaid their TARP loan at a 20+% rate of interest.
OTOH, GS benefited from low interest and guaranteed loans from the FDIC by becoming a bank holding company and was allegedly one of the primary beneficiaries of the AIG bailouts.
GS is on pace to have record employee compensation this year.
How much of that profit was a result of favorable government intervention? Fair to say it helps to have friends in high places (like former CEO and SecTreas Paulson).
I also Mr. Casella’s sports analogy lacking. He should have compared the untenable salary and compensation structure that GS employees and pro athletes both have. Very high average and median salaries, and usually guaranteed. Except pro athletes and leagues can’t look forward to government bailouts.
Bob,
Are you still publishing via podcast? I have not been able to pull in any updated podcasts in iTunes.
Thanks,
Bob
I’m beginning to think that complaining about the lack of audio podcasts will do as much good as asking about Nerd TV. I just read the column and if there is an mp3 I download it, if not I’ll do without. It may be good that the latest economic/political drival is omited from the audio podcasts which I use only for review anyway.
By making vague assertions that show you don’t understand this mess too well, you undercut your own conclusion about your more knowledgeable readers making change painless, which is after all a trope anyway: since when is change painless? As for the recent bubbles and busts, they have been recurring for millenia, there’s nothing new here, other than possibly technology enabling the cycle to grow faster and blow up quicker.
“Thinking makes is so.” Isn’t this just another way of aggrandizing stupidity? Isn’t this exactly the problem Bob defined above?
[…] to come at things from a slightly different vantage point. My last blog inspired him to write “Is Technology Evil?” (www.cringely.com) He clearly did not like my sports analogies and found wisdom and inspiration […]
Actually I think you are edging up on something I’ve been slowly concluding: Finance is evil.
Financial wizards do a fabulous job of extracting value. Unfortunately they usually have no concept of how to create value.
Scientists, inventors, engineers and even programmers create value. The American economy has come to be so dominated by financial people that it is creating precious little new value, so we are in deep do. . .
There is demand for and we need both types of people.
[…] the post Is Technology Evil?, Robert X. Cringely asks if the automated trading software used by Goldman Sachs is destroying the […]
I like these columns about the fundamentals. Too often we worry about the varnish.
The thing that makes Goldman such an efficient parasite is that it has no natural predators. It seems that at every turn Goldman and the USA federal government are inter-twined, giving them unnatural advantages.
If Goldman can take unfair advantage of the system, using technology, then there is huge market incentive to create a competitor to Goldman to do the same and bring the market to equilibrium. Investors should be champing at the bit to buy into these new companies.
But there are so many regulations on the financial sector (>40,000 since 2000, I’ve read) that starting a new Goldman competitor is neigh impossible. Regulators always benefit, and are ultimately embraced by, the incumbents of the industry because they raise the barrier to entry. Destructively high, in this case. See also: our IPO market went to London.
[…] I, Cringely: “Goldman Sachs isn’t evil, just stupid. And that stupidity comes in the form of their witless abuse of technology. …Jim’s sports analogies are misplaced because while sporting events must inevitably have winners and losers economies don’t. TRADING has winners and losers but Goldman is an INVESTMENT bank (worse still, they are now a bank holding company) pretending to be on the side of economic growth. Trading relies on finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the system while investing grows the economy. Trading is a parasite on investing. I’m not saying to ban it, I AM saying that technology has enabled outfits like Goldman to be such efficient parasites that they threaten the survival of their hosts.” […]
I must be dense. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but would prefer that you make a clear and lucid statement of the problems you see.
I can’t speak for the author, of course, but my interpretation was that GS is to the economy at large what the Big Three were to Detroit. And if left to ‘prosper’ in the same heavily subsidized and legally favored fashion, the economy at large will start looking increasingly like Detroit.
So, you know, not good.
I second @issy53. Please give a specific scenario or explain the mechanism GS destroys us with step by step. I suspect Cringely may be on to something, but he needs to explain how it works.
Cringely is clearly referring to flash trading, but as far as I know, the jury is still out regarding its market impact. Moreover, GS is far from the only, or even the largest, entity in that market, so I’m sort of with you guys in being confused with exactly what it is that sets it apart from the crowd.
The problem isn’t what you state it to be.
The problem is that criminal acts are not prosecuted in this country. When crime pays in a (Godless/ethicless) society it will collapse. Note all of the third world. Unpunished criminal graft, corruption, and greed is everywhere there are failed societies.
We are joining them.
Just the other day, I heard the phrase that describes what you are trying to say. Crimogenic environment.
“When crime pays in a (Godless/ethicless) society it will collapse.”
Iran, is pretty god-fearing nation. Most of the economy is state owned, inflation is triple digit, and corruption is rampant. https://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Iran I think you can leave out the parenthetical and the sentence is fine, no need to drag religious bigotry into the discussion.
I’ll place parentheticals as I please. Your perspective on faith, though the mode, is hardly competent (I viewed your link to philobyte :-).
I hate translated emoticons. They add more than I intended.
You seem to be talking about Quants and (bad) mortgage schemes simultaneously. However, the connection is elusive to me. Could you clarify?
If Goldman makes China the next economic superpower, won’t that help Ma and Pa Chinese people?
Not in the least, because China is becoming just as owned by large corporations as the US is. Perhaps more so, because the Chinese government views its citizens as ignorant pawns to be shuffled around the board when they get in the way of business — and acts to keep them as ignorant pawns in every way possible.
You are right about the government treating us little guys like little pawns, but they simply treat the corporations as knights, bishops and rooks. A huge bureaucracy will sacrifice any of them to preserve itself, and grow. To paraphrase Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is big government.”
Sorry, I don’t find this post convincing at all. The analogy of trading to parasitism is an interesting if overused one, but it doesn’t really further your argument. As Brian commented, mortgage securitization and trading are very different. In fact, if banks had held onto less of those securities and… traded them, they would have been in far better shape. There’s a great case to be made that improved quant trading improves markets because it speeds up price discovery and reduces volatility.
The Soviet Union analogy is equally poor if not worse.
Remember, revision, revision, revision. And kill your darlings.
I think what Cringely is saying is that the financial traders are modern day privateers. They are authorized by the government to steal from the government’s enemies, which would be everyone that isn’t in our government and that has something worth stealing. The privateers and the government split the booty and the war goes on.
I don’t think it can be much clearer. Goldman Sachs used to do investments. Investments are the process of giving money to people so something gets done. Trading is different. Trading, especially high-speed computer trading (like, in fractions of a second), simply siphons money away from some people to give it to others. Nothing is made, nothing is supported, nothing is produced – except more money in the accounts at Goldman Sachs.
If one is investing, one is trying to make something come out of the face that money can make things happen. If one is simply trading, then it doesn’t matter if the money goes to cancer drug development, tobacco, or useless ‘securities” made up of mortgage hamburger. All that matters is at the end of the day, you have more money than you did in the morning.
The potential for evil when you don’t plan – worse, when you don’t care – is staggering. “Don’t be evil” is an acknowledgement that yes, technology pursued simply to make money can result in chaos, pain, and destruction for people who weren’t even involved: insane disparities of wealth, and potential economic collapse.
Clear?
Clear?
When will we learn that just because something can be done does not mean it should be done? When will we learn that financial markets cannot regulate themselves and that citizens should be made to put the interest of their country before their own financial gain? In the past when someone had completely sold out their own country they were called traitors and charged with Treason. Buying imports is one thing (America has always done that since Colonial Times) but to plan the downfall of the American economy and hand it over to China just because they want to be rich is another thing totally. There has got to be a line in the sand.
I Agree with Fred. The US has all the hallmarks of a failed state and will collapse. Goldman Sachs is just one of the more visible symptoms of that process (as are the occupations of Iraq and Afganistan). But lets listen to an expert on failed states and subsequent collapse:
https://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259
Expert? The first line of the article states he’s not an expert!
[…] listening to https://www.cringely.com/2009/08/is-technology-evil/ […]
I think that though you’ve identified a problem, you haven’t located the underlying cause. High-speed trading is allowed by exchanges and allowed by current legislation and if there is money in it people will do it.
What might be needed is legislation that mandates a cool down period on all purchases, and a minimum holding period for all trades. I don’t think we can get rid of puts, but we could have heavier fines for unsupported or failed puts.
It is in our nature to pursue any small advantage. Clearly the people at Goldman are oblivious to the larger picture. But can we really expect them to be otherwise? They are only acting within their narrow vision as an investment house bent on profit. The problem arises when such a business invades the regulatory bodies, turning oversight decisions to it’s own ends. At that point, the bodies appointed to take the bigger picture into account have been undermined. If these bodies were actually doing their jobs, simple solutions would make all the difference. Solutions like transparent derivative markets, Tobin taxes and making all public businesses pay dividends on gross profits. Very simple plans that would have major stabilizing effects on our economy. Instead we get endless pages of legislation, written by the lawyers of such firms, made to look like action, but only disguising the gates to business as usual.
[…] Cringely on technology – Is Technology evil? – Link. […]
[…] to come at things from a slightly different vantage point. My last blog inspired him to write “Is Technology Evil?” (www.cringely.com) He clearly did not like my sports analogies and found wisdom and inspiration in […]
I am not sure if I agree with your post here. See you do make the best point, I don’t think you have actually given a large amount of thought to the opposite side of the argument. Perhaps I could do a guest post or a follow-up, just tell me.
[…] magazine (print? Whassat?) article on Goldman Sachs. It was a nice fluff piece, but I agree with Cringely’s view on why GS is evil — they’re a trading house masquerading as an investment bank. Their most profitable […]
In my opinion, that Interest Savings Accounts is way to low!
When prompted, click Yes & start into Windows as normal.
Everyone should just start buying gold with the csh they have and start hiding it under the mattress.
Damn, cool website. I actually came across this on Yahoo, and I am stoked I did. I will definately be coming back here more often. Wish I could add to the conversation and bring a bit more to the table, but am just absorbing as much info as I can at the moment.
Thank You
corporation tax
Your Article Was Hand Picked For Sydication On:…
We loved this article so much I have chosen to syndicate it…
I actually came across this on Yahoo, and I am stoked I did. I will definately be coming back here more often. Wish I could add to the conversation and bring a bit more to the table, but am just absorbing as much info as I can at the moment.cheap VPS
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink – bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
I actually find that interesting. I’ve been browsing your blog for a couple days now and I truly enjoy what I see. Keep up the good work!
It is pleasant here. great study. I have been looked this info for quite a while. thanks
Can I website as much as this, from my webpage? I’m planning to gather as much sources of information as i am able.
hhprpyndzwssqkrrbv, william rast, BzFvyLtgyxGPtAdJMxCX. erdcnyltaazdlaunlu, pantene pro v, egRfavbdDUhapalvOpEf.
Hi; Excellent post for me. Your post has valuable infos. I wish to has valuable posts like yours in my website. How do you find these posts?
I agree with the above poster.
A very helpful article, Google is increasingly important in daily life.
video izlemenin keyfi videocok.com ile çıkar.
[url=https://www.installsoftware.com/educational-software]educational applications[/url] rfgdfgh ytyt trtrsrt ghgh [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/audio-software]sound drivers[/url] [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/voip]internet calling[/url] thd hjytgh ryted dfg [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/video-software]converter software[/url] fthgt trygh y yurt [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/speech-recognition-software]voice dictating[/url] rytrt6yu tr dknj ljf ouye njfjlk [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/security-software]security threat software[/url] rfg riojkl slkj nhju oji iol [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/screensavers-wallpapers]background software[/url] rgsdergrg trsf gfh ghdfsht thtrsdgthth tyhhhtrh [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/networking-software]network managing application[/url] sthheeiuhjnfkdv iunjjk oij oiajvj mkl [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/itunes-ipod-software]itunes software[/url] fbvfsd trht tghhsdf [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/internet-software]internet surfing software[/url] sfdhg thsdfgg sdgtr [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/browsers]web browsers[/url] strhf frsrg trht sdgtrtr tstsfhhtu [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/install-developer-software]programming developer[/url] ru ghsdtst trghgth thtr werrg [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/home-software]family software[/url]gwegr trhhdrs tthyj utrj [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/gaming-software]computer game software[/url] ytjuytj jytj [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/e-mail-software]email[/url] ytjye eytj jtj uy kykjk kyu [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/drivers]update drivers[/url] r7yu yudf ytj ytrt6 tyj [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/desktop-enhancement]desktop widgets[/url]ytjt6uydhj ytjuyr dyj djyj yj [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/design-software]home designing software[/url]j dyjud yjdyj [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/operating-systems]computer systems[/url] ydj ikl jbdddn dfgdtr tdt gtrsdr [url=https://www.installsoftware.com/business-software]book keeping software[/url]
Wow!, this was a top quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done
Seriously. Why did not I visualize that?
Wow!, this was a top quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a good article
Took me time to learn every of the feedback, but i really loved the article. It proved to be extremely beneficial to me and i’m positive to every of the commenters here! it’s all the time great when you can not solely be informed, but additionally entertained! i’m sure you had enjoyable penning this content.
You wrote some excellentparts and I’m pleased you were brutally honest.
comparable with my type of view
I’ve discovered a lot in your website and I look ahead to further updates and will probably be back. Perhaps this can be a bit offf matter however in any case, I’ve been browsing about your blog and it seems to be actually neat. impassioned about your writing. I am creating a new blog and laborious-pressed to make it appear nice, and supply glorious articles.
The information is very complete. It tackles a broad field of ideas. Thank you for giving me a chance to see things the way you do.
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)
Hey everyone, I’ve attached a pointer to another resource I found on the online searches I’ve done that has quite a bit of valuable information and data on the topic.
May be a really good idea to bookmark this current website and travel over the site I am recommending and bookmark that too.
We really need this type of resources these days.
Thanks!
thanks .. i like web site . enjoy
Great discussion, Useful for me because i am working such related project. It guides me a lot.
There exists a serious debate today and lots of heated up ideas whether you aren’t for your ##keyword## . In the event you understand it? What factors when you think about before making your decision? The objective of this post is for you to weigh the pros, cons and alternatives you’ve.
I don’t think tech is in and of itself evil. In fact, much of modern technology is liberating. But there’s no question that it can be problematic when used by people with evil motives. I think a better title for this post would be “Are Large Investment Banks Evil?” or even “Are Large Corporations Evil?”
[…] Cringely speculated that the day might be coming when Goldman Sachs decides the United States isn’t worth dealing with anymore. Crazy, eh? Maybe not. Blaming ‘intense media attention,’ Goldman Sachs has […]
This article seems to imply that big companies leaving the US for China (or any other country) “improves the world” while doing the opposite doesn’t. I’d argue that that assumption is, at least, disputable.
Don’t misunderstand me: I’d take the US as a world leader over China any day. (Just look at what they are doing with their Internet)
There are probably more Moms and Pops in the Chinese farms than in the American ones. These are human beings, too. And their numbers also have to be taken into account when speaking about global improvement.
What I’m saying is that this “what’s good for US is good for the world” mentality is exactly what has brought us to the current crysis. The world leaders can’t afford to be so myopic.
Perhaps this can be a bit offf matter however in any case, I’ve been browsing about your blog and it seems to be actually neat. impassioned about your writing.
clamped of your lasted in the blacked rengerink the felearty thank admin
Ciekawy i wartościowy tekst na stronie. Dzięki.
Great blog, I am going to spend more time learning about this topic
From all the sites I have been to covering this subject matter, I think you do that best at explaining it, so very well done my friend.
clamped of your lasted in the blacked rengerink the felearty thank admin.
Great blog, I am going to spend more time learning about this topic
Great page and easy to understand description. Could I link this post on my site.
Hi I like your comment and it is so informational and I am gonna bookmark it. One thing to say the Superb analysis you have done is greatly remarkable.No one goes that extra mile these days? Bravo. Just another suggestion you canget a Translator for your Global Audience .
enable cookies…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is Technology Evil? – Cringely on technology[…]…
best headphones for the running machine…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is Technology Evil? – Cringely on technology[…]…
Air Fryer…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is Technology Evil? – Cringely on technology[…]…